[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16672-16676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06523]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0198; FRL-10022-11-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 Wheeling, WV-OH Area Comprising Marshall and 
Ohio 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 (WV). This revision pertains to West Virginia's plan 
for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS) for the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH 
area (Wheeling Area) comprising Marshall and Ohio 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 April 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0198. 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. Pag[aacute]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. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 29, 2020 (85 FR 38831), 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 
ozone NAAQS through June 14, 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 15, 2007 (72 FR 27247, effective June 14, 2007), EPA 
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from WVDEP for 
the Wheeling 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 (South Coast II),\1\ the D.C. Circuit held 
that this requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Wheeling 
Area, that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 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

[[Page 16673]]

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 Virginia's obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and 
addresses each of the five necessary elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the June 29, 2020 NPRM, consistent with 
longstanding EPA's 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 values \4\ are 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 Wheeling, WV-OH Area comprising Marshall 
and Ohio Counties as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The effect of 
this action makes certain commitments related to the maintenance of the 
1997 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``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.
    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received four comments on the June 29, 2020 NPRM. 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 alleges that the plan should not be 
approved due to the allowance of future expansion of Interstate 70 (I-
70) within Ohio County in West Virginia and Belmont County in Ohio from 
a West Virginia ``transportation conformity plan.'' The commenter takes 
issue that the ``transportation conformity plan'' will allow more 
vehicles to use the highway, hence increasing the vehicle miles 
traveled (VMT) and the mobile source emissions. The commenter claims 
that ``EPA should require WV to compensate'' for the increase in VMT 
arising from the future expansion project and suggests that this could 
be evaluated by utilizing ``actual VMT data collected on I-70'' in the 
motor vehicle emission simulator (MOVES) modeling and the modeling 
``will show an increase in mobile source emissions in the area beyond 
that shown in WV's plan.''
    Response 1: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the plan 
should not be approved for the reasons given in the comment. The 
commenter did not identify a specific project that would expand the I-
70 as it exists today. In an effort to identify the project that the 
commenter referred to, we reviewed West Virginia's current statewide 
transportation improvement program (STIP) and the current long-range 
transportation plan for the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling 
metropolitan area which includes Marshall and Ohio Counties. We could 
not identify any I-70 expansion projects in the STIP.\5\ We did 
identify several bridge rehabilitation projects on I-70, but these 
would not constitute highway expansion projects and would not result in 
increased vehicle miles traveled. We did identify one highway expansion 
project in the area's long-range transportation plan.\6\ That project 
would upgrade I[hyphen]70 to six lanes from Elm Grove/Triadelphia 
interchange to Cabela Drive in Ohio County. Construction is not slated 
to begin until 2036. The opening date for the project is not stated in 
the long-range plan. Belomar, the metropolitan planning organization 
for the area, will have to consider the potential impacts of this 
project on air quality in the area when it makes transportation 
conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, with 
respect to the commenter's request that compensating emissions 
reductions be obtained for any emissions increases that this project 
may eventually cause, there is no mechanism under the CAA that requires 
such compensating emissions reductions as part of a maintenance plan. 
In order to approve the second maintenance plan for the area, the plan 
must demonstrate that the area will be able to remain in attainment of 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2027. We have reviewed the second 
maintenance plan and for the reasons stated in this final rule and in 
the proposal, we have concluded that the second maintenance plan is 
approvable. 85 FR 38831 (June 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/programming/STIP/Pages/default.aspx.
    \6\ https://www.belomar.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/bomts-lrp-2040-final-document.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter claims that the second maintenance plan 
should be rejected because ``EPA has not evaluated the loss in emission 
reductions'' due to certain policy positions taken by the Trump 
administration related to ``. . . the CAFE \7\ standards, biofuel 
blending requirements and removing States' and California's ability to 
set standards.'' The commenter asserts that West Virginia failed to use 
``reduced emission standards'' in the mobile source evaluation. The 
commenter contends that West Virginia ``uses assumptions that are 
against EPA's stated policy under the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants 
(NESHAP)'' and therefore, the plan should be rejected. Further, the 
commenter takes issue that ``Recently EPA has announced protections 
under the mercury and air toxic standards (MATS) rule and the Boiler 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule,'' and due to the 
removal of these programs, ``EPA should require states to use those 
planning assumptions and account for any lost emissions reductions 
achieved by those programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: It is unclear from the comment how or why the commenter 
believes the particular policies cited are relevant to this action. For 
example, biofuel blending requirements are not relevant to ozone 
reductions, and neither West Virginia nor Ohio has adopted California's 
light duty vehicle emission standards, and therefore, neither state is 
impacted by the withdrawal of California's waiver for its zero emission 
vehicle sales mandate and its greenhouse gas emissions standards.\8\ 
The change to the National Highway

[[Page 16674]]

Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) corporate average fuel economy 
rules and EPA's greenhouse gas emissions standards did not affect EPA's 
Tier 3 vehicle and fuel regulation.\9\ Therefore, new vehicles continue 
to be required to be certified to the Tier 3 emissions standards for 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 
Neither of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) rulemakings 
affected emissions from the existing vehicle fleet. For the reasons 
stated in the NPRM, we disagree with alleged deficiencies in evaluating 
mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 84 FR 51310, September 27, 2019. The Safer Affordable 
Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.
    \9\ See 85 FR 24174, April 30, 2020. The Safer Affordable Fuel-
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger 
Cars and Light Trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also do not agree with the commenter's contentions about West 
Virginia using ``assumptions that are against EPA's stated policy under 
NSPS and NESHAP,'' or that EPA should require West Virginia to address 
the removal of protections the commenter alleges EPA has made under the 
MATS and Boiler MACT rules. The commenter does not identify how any 
NSPS or NESHAP ``policies'' impact this action, or which policies, 
NESHAPs or NSPS the commenter believes are relevant to this action. 
With respect to MATS and the Boiler MACT, the commenter incorrectly 
assumes that protections under those rules have been ``removed.'' In a 
2020 rulemaking, EPA found that it was not ``appropriate and 
necessary'' to regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions from 
coal- and oil-fired Electrical Generating Units (EGUs), thereby 
reversing the Agency's previous conclusion under CAA section 
112(n)(1)(A). 85 FR 31286 (May 22, 2020). This action did not, however, 
remove the EGUs covered by MATS from regulation. EPA explicitly stated 
that coal- and oil-fired EGUs would remain on the CAA section 112(c)(1) 
source category list, and that the CAA section 112(d) standards for 
those EGUs, as promulgated in the MATS rule, would be unaffected by its 
reversal of the ``appropriate and necessary'' finding because EPA had 
not met the statutorily required CAA section 112(c)(9) delisting 
criteria to remove these units from regulation. 85 FR at 31286 (May 22, 
2020).\10\ The commenter is therefore incorrect that there has been any 
``removal of protections'' with respect to the emission limits required 
under the MATS rule. Similarly, although EPA has proposed certain 
changes to the Boiler MACT in response to a court decision,\11\ those 
proposed changes have not been finalized to date. Therefore, the 
environmental protections of neither the MATS rule nor the Boiler MACT 
rule have been removed or decreased. EPA therefore disagrees with the 
commenter that this plan should be disapproved because of WVDEP's 
failure to address, in a plan designed to maintain an ozone standard, 
the CAA programs and policies referenced by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We note also that the 2020 rulemaking has been challenged 
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and has also 
been identified by President Biden's January 20, 2021 Executive 
Order as an action that EPA should propose to review, revise, or 
rescind by August 2021.
    \11\ 85 FR 52198 (August 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the 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, but the commenter ignores that EPA's primary basis 
for finding that West Virginia has provided for maintenance of the 1997 
ozone NAAQS in the Wheeling Area is the State's demonstration that the 
criteria for a limited maintenance plan has been met. See 85 FR 38831, 
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 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 above, West Virginia primarily met the requirement to demonstrate 
maintenance of the NAAQS by showing that they met the criteria for a 
limited maintenance plan, 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 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

[[Page 16675]]

is stringency. Taking the Wheeling Area's most recent certified design 
value as of the proposal (i.e., for the years 2016-2018), the area's 
design value was 0.066 parts per million (ppm). What we can discern 
from this is that the area is meeting the 1997 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 Wheeling Area's design value is 
projected to be 0.067 ppm,\12\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The June 29, 2020 NPRM for this action recited 0.060 ppm as 
the Projected 2023 design value in Table 2--Wheeling Area 8-hour 
Ozone Design Value in Part Per Million. Through this final action we 
clarify that the correct Projected 2023 design value that was 
included in the State's submission, is 0.067 ppm. The inclusion of 
the slightly higher but incorrect figure in the NPRM is a harmless 
error that does not alter EPA's approval of this LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\13\ 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 TSD runs cited by the commenter have 
been at issue in various legal challenges to EPA actions, including the 
Wisconsin v. EPA case. 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 Wheeling Area 
will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the end of its 20th-year 
maintenance period is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \14\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313.
    \15\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323-331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CSAP and CSAP Update and CSAP 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 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 close-out, 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 ozone NAAQS limited maintenance plan for 
the Wheeling, WV-OH area comprising Marshall and Ohio 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);
     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 16676]]

    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 June 1, 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 Wheeling, WV-OH area comprising Marshall and Ohio 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: March 25, 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

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. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, 
WV-OH Area Comprising Marshall and Ohio Counties'' at the end of the 
table to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable         submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone National         Wheeling WV-OH, West     12/10/19   3/31/21, [insert      ...................
 Ambient Air Quality Standard       Virginia Area                       Federal Register
 Second Maintenance Plan for the    Comprising Marshall                 citation].
 West Virginia Portion of the       and Ohio Counties.
 Wheeling, WV-OH Area Comprising
 Marshall and Ohio Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-06523 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P