[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67661-67665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21757]
[[Page 67661]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0171; FRL-10015-34-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; Redesignation of the Marshall
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the
Area's Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
redesignation request and state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of West Virginia related to the 2010 primary
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or Standard) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). Emissions of
SO2 in the Marshall, West Virginia Area have been
permanently reduced, a maintenance plan has been adopted that includes
limits that assure continued attainment and monitored ambient
SO2 readings in the nonattainment area are currently well
below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The effect of this action changes
the designation of the Marshall Area from nonattainment to attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 25, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0171. 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: Megan Goold, 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) 814-2027. Ms. Megan Goold can also be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Marshall Area is comprised of the Clay, Franklin, and
Washington Tax Districts of Marshall County, West Virginia. On March
18, 2020, West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a redesignation request for
the Marshall, West Virginia SO2 Nonattainment Area (Marshall
Area or Area). In conjunction with its request, WVDEP submitted SIP
revisions comprised of a maintenance plan for the Area, SO2
emissions limits for the Mitchell Power Plant (Mitchell), and a
modeling analysis demonstrating that the Mitchell limits provide for
attainment in the Area.
The Marshall Area was designated nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the first round of designations for the NAAQS
published on August 5, 2013, which became effective on October 4, 2013.
Under CAA section 191(a), attainment plan SIPs were due for areas
designated nonattainment in round one 18 months after the effective
date of designation, or April 4, 2015. Such SIPs were required by CAA
section 192(a) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than five years from the effective date of
nonattainment designation, or October 4, 2018. West Virginia submitted
an attainment SIP on March 17, 2017 (2017 SIP).\1\ The SIP addressed
the required elements of an attainment SIP under CAA section 172(c),
including an attainment demonstration that the State asserted showed
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, SO2 emissions
limits for the Mitchell Power Plant, reasonably available control
measures including reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT),
reasonable further progress (RFP), contingency measures, and
certification that nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit
program requirements were being met. The 2017 SIP included a West
Virginia Compliance Order on Consent (2016 consent order) that required
Kentucky Power Company, the operator of American Electric Power's (AEP)
Mitchell Power Plant, to comply with an SO2 maximum
emissions limit from Units 1 and 2, of 6,175 pounds per hour (lbs/hr)
on a 30-day rolling average, along with associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, starting on January 1, 2017.
The March 18, 2020 submittal requesting redesignation included a
demonstration showing the area is in attainment, a maintenance plan,
contingency measures, and a December 2, 2019 consent order (2019
consent order) with Kentucky Power for Mitchell with lower
SO2 emissions limits based on modeling with a changed stack
height. Specifically, the 2019 consent order establishes an
SO2 emissions limit for Mitchell Units 1 and 2 as a maximum
of 3,149 lbs/hr on a 30-day rolling average, with compliance parameters
including continuous emissions monitoring, recordkeeping including a
calculation of the daily 30-day average, reporting of deviations from
the requirements and semi-annual compliance reporting. Compliance with
the limits and other provisions in the 2019 consent order were required
starting on January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 18, 2016, EPA made a finding of failure to submit
nonattainment area SIPs for 19 nonattainment areas, including the
Marshall Area. EPA's letter to West Virginia dated September 27,
2017 confirmed that West Virginia's March 17, 2017 submittal
corrected the deficiency identified in the finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 110(k)(2) through (4), EPA was required to take
action to approve or disapprove West Virginia's 2017 SIP within 12
months of determining it to be complete, but EPA did not take timely
action. Subsequently, the Center for Biological Diversity and other
plaintiffs (CBD) sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking a court order to compel EPA's action on
West Virginia's 2017 SIP and several other SIPs for other areas in the
nation. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Wheeler, No. 4:18-
cv-03544-YGR. That lawsuit resulted in the plaintiffs and EPA agreeing
to a schedule, entered by the court as an order, for EPA to take action
on the covered SIPs by certain deadlines. The court ordered deadline
for EPA to take action on West Virginia's 2017 SIP is October 30, 2020.
The order also provided that if EPA issues a redesignation to
attainment for any area for which the order required EPA action on a
submitted SIP covered by the order, then EPA's obligation to take
action on that SIP's CAA section 172(c) elements would be automatically
terminated. As noted in the proposal, this action to redesignate the
Marshall, West Virginia nonattainment area to attainment and approve
the submitted maintenance plan with a lower emissions limit than that
contained in the 2017 SIP submission will moot EPA's requirement under
the consent order to take action on the 2017 SIP.
[[Page 67662]]
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
West Virginia's March 18, 2020 redesignation request included a
maintenance plan providing for continued attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS for a period of ten years following redesignation
of the Area, SO2 emissions limits for Mitchell, and a
modeling analysis demonstrating that the Mitchell limits provide for
attainment in the Area. West Virginia also requested that EPA
incorporate the 2019 consent order into the SIP.
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there are five criteria which must
be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment:
1. EPA has determined that the relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area;
2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k);
3. EPA has determined that improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the
SIP, Federal regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions;
4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA; and,
5. The state has met all applicable requirements for the area under
section 110 and part D. The June 30, 2020 proposal (85 FR 39505)
provides a detailed discussion of each requirement and EPA's analysis
of how each requirement was met and is not repeated here. To summarize
the analysis in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA
determined that the modeling submitted as part of the maintenance plan
for the redesignation request submitted on March 18, 2020 shows that
the Marshall Area is attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, that the
air quality improvement in the Area is attributable to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions at Mitchell, that the maintenance plan
assures that the area will continue to attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, and that West Virginia has met all applicable requirements under
section 110 (general SIP requirements) and part D of title I of the CAA
(SIP requirements for nonattainment areas) for purposes of this
redesignation. On this basis, EPA finds that West Virginia has
adequately addressed the five basic components necessary to redesignate
the Marshall Area to attainment.
EPA received one adverse comment on the proposal. To review the
full comment received, refer to the Docket for this rule, as identified
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. A summary of the comment
received, and EPA's response are provided below.
III. Public Comment and EPA Response
Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA needs to do more to
guarantee that the Mitchell plant will not violate the NAAQS.
Specifically, the commenter expresses concern that the result of the
modeling for Mitchell Plant of 196.2 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) is too close to 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\ (corresponding to
the level of the NAAQS, which is 75 parts per billion (ppb)), and
therefore does not provide an adequate margin of safety to protect
public health. Also, that EPA improperly ``rounded up'' to obtain the
value of 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\, and that 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\ is not
equivalent to the NAAQS, which is expressed as 75 ppb. In addition, the
commenter believes that if the AERMOD model was run with a finer grid,
the results would show NAAQS violations, and questions the margin of
error of the AERMOD model. Finally, the commenter asks how EPA expects
the modeled areas to maintain the NAAQS and suggests that a monitor is
needed near the Mitchell plant.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that more is
needed to guarantee that the Mitchell plant will not cause a violation
of the NAAQS. First, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS was set at a level
which already provides for an adequate margin of safety, as required by
CAA Section 109(b)(1). Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as
one where ``the attainment and maintenance of which, in the judgment of
the Administrator, based on [the air quality] criteria and allowing an
adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public
health.'' CAA section 109(b)(1). As noted when EPA set the
SO2 standard, ``[t]hus, in selecting primary standards that
include an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator is seeking not
only to prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be
harmful but also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may pose an
unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified
as to nature or degree.'' 75 FR 35520, 35521 (June 22, 2010). Because
the NAAQS already includes a margin of safety, the fact that the 99th
percentile of maximum daily one-hour modeled concentrations averaged
over five years is below the NAAQS of 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\ ensures that
public health is protected.
EPA also disagrees that EPA improperly ``rounded up'' to develop
the 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\ value that is equivalent to the 75 ppb NAAQS
standard. The commenter does not identify the number that was
supposedly rounded up, so EPA cannot directly address that claim. EPA
recognized the need to identify and apply a consistent value expressed
in [micro]g/m\3\ that EPA considers equivalent to 75 ppb, so in the
Round 3 intended designations (82 FR 41903), published September 5,
2017, EPA determined a value of 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\ (based on
calculations using all available significant figures) to be equivalent
to 75 ppb. To avoid confusion, EPA is expecting attainment and
redesignation demonstrations to show achievement with concentrations at
or below precisely 196.4 [micro]g/m\3\.\2\ EPA concludes that the
Marshall modeling results of 196.2 [micro]g/m\3\ demonstrate that the
area meets the standard. Because monitoring data was also available for
this area, EPA analyzed that data, which showed a design value for the
most recent three-year period (2017 through 2019) of 8 ppb. This
monitored data, which is from the same previously violating monitor
that caused this area to be designated nonattainment in 2013 based on
2009-2011 data, provides further evidence that SO2 emissions
concentrations have greatly improved in this area and supports EPA's
redesignation of the area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While some Round 3 designation TSDs explained that this
value was ``equivalent . . . using a 2.619 ug/m\3\ conversion
factor'' (more precisely, using a conversion factor of approximately
2.6187), in fact EPA here was determining the concentration value in
ug/m\3\ that is to be considered equivalent to 75 ppb, rather than
the precise value of the conversion factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the commenter's question about the margin of error for
AERMOD, EPA notes that AERMOD is a refined, steady-state (both
emissions and meteorology over a 1-hour time step), multiple source,
air-dispersion model that was originally promulgated by the EPA as part
of its December 2005 revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models,
and is the preferred model to use for industrial sources in this type
of air quality analysis. Furthermore, AERMOD predicts concentrations in
many areas within the nonattainment area, rather than just at the
monitor location, and therefore provides a more robust set of
concentration data to assess attainment within the area than would be
provided by a few SO2 monitors. EPA believes that the use of
AERMOD in this Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan was an
appropriate choice regardless of any potential ``margin of error'' in
the model.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that a finer
modeling grid resolution should have been used. EPA's Guidance for the
1-
[[Page 67663]]
hour SO2 Nonattainment SIP Submissions states, ``Receptor
placement should be of sufficient density to provide resolution needed
to detect significant gradients in the concentrations with receptors
placed closer together near the source to detect local gradients and
placed farther apart away from the source'' (page A-9).\3\ The area of
maximum concentration in this modeling analysis had a 100 meter spaced
receptor grid, which is the finest scale in the modeling domain. One of
the reasons which would call for a finer grid is if there were large
elevation differences between the facility and the area of maximum
concentration, and that is not the case here. The facility is 0.67
kilometers (km) from the modeled maximum concentration and the
elevation differences are minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the commenter's question regarding how the Mitchell plant
will maintain the standard, as stipulated by CAA 175A, the state must
submit a maintenance plan which demonstrates how the source within the
Marshall Area will provide for maintenance of the standard for the next
ten years. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a
revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to
be maintained for the ten years following the initial ten-year period.
To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance
plan must also contain contingency measures to assure prompt correction
of any future violations. Specifically, the maintenance plan should
address five requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality
monitoring; (4) the verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.\4\ As detailed in the NPRM for this action, WV
submitted a maintenance plan adequately addressing these five
components necessary to maintain the SO2 NAAQS in the
Marshall Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, EPA, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is making a finding that the Marshall Area has attained the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as demonstrated by a modeling analysis
reflecting a new SO2 emission limit for the Mitchell Power
Plant and reflecting evidence (described in the notice of proposed
rulemaking) that the Mitchell Power Plant is meeting this limit. EPA is
also determining that West Virginia has met the planning requirements
necessary for EPA to redesignate the Marshall Area from nonattainment
to attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the
requirements for permanent and enforceable measures, submission of an
approvable maintenance plan that will assure attainment for ten years
after redesignation, and that all other applicable CAA requirements
under section 110 and part D, as discussed in the NPRM for this rule,
have been met. Therefore, EPA is approving the Marshall Area
redesignation request, maintenance plan, SO2 emission limits
and associated compliance parameters for Mitchell in a 2019 consent
order, and the modeling demonstration showing that the limits provide
for maintenance. EPA is taking these actions under the CAA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of West
Virginia's 2010 SO2 Maintenance Plan for the Marshall Area
and the Mitchell Power Plant Consent Order CO-SIP-C-2019-13 described
in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act 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 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 these reasons, 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);
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).
[[Page 67664]]
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
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 December 28, 2020. 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 approving the redesignation of the West Virginia
Marshall Nonattainment Area and associated maintenance plan may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA
section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 28, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
52 and 81 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart XX--West Virginia
0
2. Section 52.2520 is amended:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d), by adding the entry ``Mitchell Power
Plant'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``2010 Sulfur
Dioxide Maintenance Plan--Marshall Area'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA--Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Permit/order or State explanation/
Source name registration number effective date EPA approval date citation at 40
52.2565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mitchell Power Plant............. Consent Order CO- 01/01/2020 10/26/2020, [insert Established SO2
SIP-C-2019-13. Federal Register emission limit.
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Maintenance Marshall Area 03/18/20 10/26/2020, [insert Docket No. EPA-R03-
Plan. (Clay, Franklin, Federal Register OAR-2020-0171.
and Washington Tax citation].
Districts of
Marshall County).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.2525 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2525 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.
* * * * *
(e) EPA approves the maintenance plan for Clay, Franklin, and
Washington Tax Districts, West Virginia, submitted by the Department of
Environmental Protection on March 18, 2020.
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
5. In Sec. 81.349 amend the table ``West Virginia--2010 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS [Primary]'' by revising the entry for ``Marshall, WV'' to read as
follows:
[[Page 67665]]
Sec. 81.349 West Virginia.
* * * * *
West Virginia--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation
Designated area\1 3\ ---------------------------------------
Date \2\ Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall, WV:
Marshall County (part)...... 11/25/2020 Attainment.
Area consisting of Clay Tax
District, Franklin Tax
District, and Washington Tax
District.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian
country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in
the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in
the designation area is not a determination that the state has
regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Mineral County will be designated by December 31, 2020.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-21757 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P