27060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0692; FRL–8314–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Redesignation of the Weirton, 

WV Portion of the SteubenvilleWeirton, OH-WV 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Area’s Maintenance 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a 

redesignation request and a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia. 

The West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is 

requesting that the Brooke and Hancock 

County, West Virginia (Weirton) portion 

of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 

area (herein referred to as the ‘‘Area’’) be 

redesignated as attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with 

its redesignation request, the State 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 

maintenance plan for Weirton that 

provides for continued attainment of the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 

years, until 2018. EPA is also approving 

the adequacy determination for the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) that are identified in the 

Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance plan 

for purposes of transportation 

conformity, and is approving those 

MVEBs. EPA is approving the 

redesignation request and the 

maintenance plan revision to the West 

Virginia SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on June 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0692. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Caprio, (215) 814–2156, or by email at caprio.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West 

Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s redesignation request 

and a SIP revision that establishes a 

maintenance plan for Weirton that sets 

forth how Weirton will maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the next 12 years. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the WVDEP 

on August 3, 2006. Other specific 

requirements of West Virginia’s 

redesignation request SIP revision for 

the maintenance plan and the rationales 

for EPA’s proposed actions are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. On October 19, 2006, EPA 

received a comment, from the West 

Virginia Division of Highways, in 

support of its October 2, 2006 NPR. 

Also, on October 28, 2006, EPA received 

adverse comments on the said October 

2, 2006 NPR. A summary of the 

comments submitted and EPA’s 

responses are provided in Section II of 

this document. However, errata were 

found on page 57912 of the NPR. On 

page 57912 (Table 4), an error occurred 

in EPA’s calculation of the 2018 Ohio 

NOX point sources. The correct 2018 

Ohio NOX point source should read 46.4 

tons per day (tpd) instead of 41.0 tpd. 

This error adversely affects the total 

NOX point sources and the 2018 Ohio 

total NOX emissions. The correct total 

NOX point sources should read 52.0 tpd 

instead of 46.6 tpd. Lastly, the 2018 

Ohio total NOX emissions should read 

55.3 tpd instead of 49.9 tpd. It should 

be noted that these errata do not affect 

the attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard or the demonstration of 

maintenance in the Area. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

on behalf of the West Virginia Division 

of Highways, they would like to go on 

record as supporting the redesignation 

of Weirton from nonattainment to 

attainment. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

comment of support for our final action. 

Comment: The commenter notes that 

although there are no electrical 

generating units (EGUs) in the Weirton 

portion of the Area, ‘‘significant’’ NOX

emissions reductions are expected from 

2002—2018 at two EGU’s located in 

Steubenville. The commenter requests 

specific information on the controls at 

these plants and measures making these 

emissions reductions enforceable. 

Response: The Redesignation of 

Jefferson County, Ohio to Attainment of 

the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 72 FR 711 

(January 8, 2007) notes that Ohio’s EGU 

NOX emissions control rules stemming 

from EPA’s NOX SIP Call, October 27, 

1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to the 

NOX SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 

26298) and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 

11222), and the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) May 12, 2005 (70 FR 

25162), to be implemented beyond 

2006, will further lower NOX emissions 

in upwind areas, resulting in decreased 

ozone and ozone precursor transport 

into Jefferson County and the 

Steubenville-Weirton Area. This will 

also support maintenance of the ozone 

standard in this Area, which 

particularly benefits from the NOX SIP 

Call and CAIR. These two regulations 

focus on utility emissions in the Eastern 

United States and impose a permanent 

cap on overall emissions from affected 

sources. This cap is likely to minimize 

growth of this very important 

component of emissions in the Area. 

The emission projections for Jefferson 

County and the Steubenville-Weirton 

Area as a whole, coupled with the 

expected impacts of the States’ EGU 

NOX rules and CAIR, lead to the 

conclusion that the Area should 

maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

throughout the required 10-year 

maintenance period and through 2018. 

The projected decreases in local VOC 

and local and regional NOX emissions 

indicate that peak ozone levels in the 

Area may actually further decline 

during the maintenance period. 

Based on the comparison of the 

projected emissions and the attainment 

year emissions, we conclude that the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and 

the Ohio EPA have successfully 

demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone 

standard should be maintained 

throughout the Area. 

In addition, in this action EPA is 

approving the Maintenance Plan for 

Weirton and in a separate action has 

proposed approval of the Maintenance 

Plan for the Jefferson County 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27061 

1The fourth highest 8-hour ozone monitoring 

values at the Hancock County, West Virginia 

(Weirton) monitor for 2006 were 0.085 ppm, 0.079 

ppm, 0.079 ppm, and 0.077 ppm. The fourth 

highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the 

Jefferson County, Ohio (Steubenville) monitor for 

2006 were 0.089, 0.083, 0.080 ppm, and 0.080 ppm. 

Thus the design values at both Area monitors for 

monitoring years 2004–2006 are still showing 

attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a value of 

0.075 ppm at the Weirton monitor and 0.078 ppm 

at the Steubenville monitor. 

(Steubenville) portion of the Area. 

Collectively, the Ohio and West Virginia 

Maintenance Plans demonstrate why 

those states believe that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone 

standard for at least 10 years from the 

date of redesignation. Furthermore, the 

Contingency Plans, which are 

components of the Maintenance Plans, 

set forth the steps that the States will 

undertake to preserve attainment of the 

8-hour ozone standard if air quality 

indicators show that the air quality of 

the Area has declined to the point when 

contingency measures to reverse that 

deterioration of air quality should begin 

being implemented. Therefore, 

continued maintenance of the 8-hour 

ozone standard will be assured 

independent of whether or not 

enforceable reductions are currently 

called for at the two Jefferson County 

EGUs. In short, if projected reductions 

from the Jefferson County EGUs do not 

occur, and if the measures from the NOX

SIP call, CAIR and other ozone control 

measures that are currently 

implemented or will be implemented in 

the near future, fail to maintain the 8- 

hour ozone standard in the Area, the 

States of West Virginia and Ohio 

nevertheless will have, with the 

Contingency Plan provisions of their 

Maintenance Plans, a SIP-approved 

process for assuring that air quality in 

Steubenville-Weirton Area will 

continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

the Weirton redesignation is based on 

2002–2004 air quality data, and should 

instead be based on the most recent 

three years of air quality data, 2004–

2006. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 2006 

data was available as a basis for 

redesignating Weirton to attainment, 

and also disagrees with the comment 

that the redesignation cannot be based 

on the quality assured 2002–2004 air 

quality data. EPA may redesignate an 

area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS if three years of quality assured 

data indicate that the area has attained 

the standard and the most recent quality 

assured air quality data indicates that 

the area is still attaining the standard at 

the time of the redesignation. EPA has 

determined that Weirton has attained 

compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS subsequent to the calendar year 

2004 ozone season (April–October) 

based on three years (2002–2004) of 

quality assured data. It is also worth 

noting that while our determination that 

the Area has attained the standard is 

based on the 2002–2004 data, the 2005 

calendar year quality assured data and 

the newly available quality assured data 

from 2006, indicate that the Area 

continues to attain the standard. The 

2005 and 2006 data supports our 

conclusion in the NPR on October 2, 

2006 (71 FR 57905) that emissions 

reductions in the Area can be 

contributed to permanent and 

enforceable measures throughout the 

Area and that air quality monitoring 

data indicate that the Area continues to 

attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1

Comment: The commenter asks why 

the monitoring site in Jefferson County, 

Ohio was moved at the end of 2003, 

where the new site is in relation to the 

old one, and an explanation as to the 

acceptability of combining the data from 

the two sites. 

Response: The monitoring site in 

Jefferson County was relocated to a site 

1⁄3 mile from the original site after 2003 

because Ohio EPA lost site access to the 

original site. The new site was approved 

by EPA Region 5 and meets all siting 

criteria described in 40 CFR 58 

Appendix E. The original and final sites 

are sufficiently close together and 

removed from sources of ozone 

precursors such that the two sites 

represent the same air quality. 

Therefore, the data from the two sites 

can be combined when calculating the 

three-year average ozone concentration. 

See Redesignation of Jefferson County, 

Ohio to Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard, 72 FR 711 (January 8, 2007). 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

cold and wet summers, rather than 

enforceable emissions reductions are a 

significant cause of improvement of air 

quality in Weirton, although the 

commenter also asserts based on the 

number of days exceeding 84 ppb 2005 

that the air quality is actually not 

improving. 

Response: In accordance with 

Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 50, 

compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is met at an ambient air 

monitoring site when the 3-year average 

of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number 

of days which exceed the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Additionally, EPA uses the 

three-year averaging period to minimize 

year to year variations in the summer 

(i.e., ozone season) weather. See 

Redesignation of Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53094, 53100 

(October 19, 2001). Therefore, the 

number of days exceeding 84 ppb are 

not relevant to a determination of 

whether an area (or portion thereof), has 

attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Information relative to long term trends 

of West Virginia summer temperatures 

and rainfall-based data was obtained 

from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Climate Data Center (please see 

attached). Based on EPA’s review, this 

information shows that the summers 

2000 through 2006 experienced year to 

year variations in average summer 

temperature and rainfall typical of the 

summer seasons in the State of West 

Virginia. Thus the improvement in air 

quality is not due to unusually cold and 

wet summers. Rather, the improvement 

in air quality is due to the 

implementation of permanent and 

enforceable measures as explained in 

the NPR. The permanent and 

enforceable measures listed in the 

Weirton NPR include the National Low 

Emissions Vehicle (NLEV), motor 

vehicle fleet turnover with new vehicles 

meeting the Tier 2 standards, and the 

Clean Diesel Program. These federal 

vehicle programs along with the NOX

SIP Call resulted in a 3.0 tons per year 

(tpy) decrease in VOC emissions and a 

37.2 tpy decrease in NOX emissions 

throughout the Steubenville-Weirton 

Area between 2002 and 2004. Therefore, 

EPA believes that the improvement in 8- 

hour ozone air quality is a result of 

identifiable, permanent and enforceable 

reductions in ozone precursor 

emissions, not unusually cold and wet 

summers. 

Comment: The commenter requests 

2006 monitoring data for the Weirton 

Area. 

Response: Preliminary (not quality 

assured) data is publicly available at the 

following Web sites: http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/data/ and/or http:// 

www.airnow.gov. See also, footnote 1. 

Additionally, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit recently vacated EPA’s April 30, 

2004 ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Standard’’ (the Phase 1 implementation 

rule). South Coast Air Quality 

Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a 

supplemental proposed rulemaking that 

set forth its views on the potential effect 

of the Court’s ruling on this and other 

proposed redesignation actions. 72 FR 

13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed 

to find that the Court’s ruling does not 

alter any requirements relevant to the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
27062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed redesignations that would 

prevent EPA from finalizing these 

redesignations, for the reasons fully 

explained in the supplemental notice. 

EPA provided a 15-day review and 

comment period on this supplemental 

proposed rulemaking. The public 

comment period closed on April 6, 

2007. EPA received six comments, all 

supporting EPA’s supplemental 

proposed rulemaking, and supporting 

redesignation of the affected areas. EPA 

recognizes the support provided in 

these comments as well, but again, we 

do not believe any specific response to 

comments is necessary with respect to 

these comments. In addition, several of 

these comments included additional 

rationale for proceeding with these 

proposed redesignations. EPA had not 

requested comment on any additional 

rationale, does not believe any 

additional rationale is necessary, and 

similarly does not believe any specific 

response to these comments is 

necessary, and thus has not provided 

any. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the State of West 

Virginia’s August 3, 2006 redesignation 

request and maintenance plan because 

the requirements for approval have been 

satisfied. EPA has evaluated West 

Virginia’s redesignation request, 

submitted on August 3, 2006, and 

determined that it meets the 

redesignation criteria set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes 

that the redesignation request and 

monitoring data demonstrate that 

Weirton has attained the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The final approval of this 

redesignation request will change the 

designation of the Weirton, West 

Virginia portion of the Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA is approving 

the associated maintenance plan for 

Weirton, submitted on August 3, 2006, 

as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. 

EPA is approving the maintenance plan 

for Weirton because it meets the 

requirements of section 175A. 

EPA is also approving the MVEBs 

submitted by West Virginia in 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request. In this final rulemaking, EPA is 

notifying the public that we have found 

that the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs in 

the Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan are adequate and approved for 

conformity purposes. As a result of our 

finding, Brooke and Hancock Counties 

must use the MVEBs from the submitted 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

future conformity determinations. The 

adequate and approved MVEBs are 

provided in the following table: 

ADEQUATE AND APPROVED MOTOR

VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

(MVEBS) IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Budget year NOX VOC 

2009 .................. 2.8 2.0 

2018 .................. 1.2 1.0 

Weirton is subject to the CAA’s 

requirements for basic ozone 

nonattainment areas until and unless it 

is redesignated to attainment. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this final action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

For this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Redesignation of an area to attainment 

under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean 

Air 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 new regulatory 

requirements on sources. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

This final rule also does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it affects the 

status of a geographical area, does not 

impose any new requirements on 

sources, or allow the state to avoid 

adopting or implementing other 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this 

context, in the absence of a prior 

existing requirement for the State to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS), 

EPA has no authority to disapprove a 

SIP submission for failure to use VCS. 

It would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 

a SIP submission; to use VCS in place 

of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. Redesignation is an action that 

affects the status of a geographical area 

and does not impose any new 

requirements on sources. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this final rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

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 rule 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27063 

the Federal Register. This rule 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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 13, 2007. 

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, to approve the 

redesignation request, maintenance plan 

and adequacy determination for MVEBs 

for Weirton, 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: May 4, 2007. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 an entry for 

the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, 

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area 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 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 

Area.

Brooke and Hancock Counties ........... 08/03/06 05/14/07 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.349 the table entitled ‘‘West 

Virginia—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area to 

read as follows: 

§ 81.349 West Virginia 

* * * * * 

WEST VIRGINIA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/Classification 

Date1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area 

Brooke County .............................................................. 05/14/07 Attainment.

Hancock County ........................................................... 05/14/07 Attainment.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9208 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with RULES