101896 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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 Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

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). Executive 

Order 12898 (Federal Actions To 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) 

directs Federal agencies to identify and 

address ‘‘disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects’’ of their actions on communities 

with environmental justice (EJ) concerns 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment. 

TCEQ did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

Consistent with EPA’s discretion under 

the CAA, EPA has evaluated the EJ 

considerations of this action, as is 

described in the proposed action at 89 

FR 63117 (August 2, 2024) in the section 

titled, ‘‘EJ Considerations.’’ Due to the 

nature of the action being taken here, 

this action is expected to have a neutral 

to positive impact on the air quality of 

the affected area. In addition, there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 

of achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

This action is exempt from the 

Congressional Review Act because it is 

a rule of particular applicability. The 

rule makes factual determinations for an 

identified entity (the Rusk-Panola area 

of Texas), based on facts and 

circumstances specific to that entity. 

The determination of failure to attain 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS does not in itself 

create any new requirements beyond 

what is mandated by the CAA. 

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 February 18, 

2025. 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 9, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency 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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2277 by adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2277 Control strategy and 

regulations: Sulfur Dioxide. 

* * * * * 

(c) Determination of failure to attain. 

Effective January 16, 2025, the EPA has 

determined that the Rusk and Panola 

Counties, Texas nonattainment area 

failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of January 

12, 2022. This determination triggers the 

requirements of CAA section 179(d) for 

the State of Texas to submit a revision 

to the Texas SIP for the Rusk and Panola 

Counties nonattainment area to the EPA 

by December 17, 2025. The SIP revision 

must, among other elements, provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour primary SO2

NAAQS in the Rusk and Panola 

Counties, Texas SO2 nonattainment area 

as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than December 17, 2029. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29482 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0371; FRL–12159– 

02–R10] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Redesignation 

Request and Associated Maintenance 

Plan for Whatcom County, WA 2010 

SO2 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 25, 2024, the State of 

Washington (WA) submitted a request 

for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to redesignate to 

attainment a portion of Whatcom 

County immediately surrounding the 

now permanently closed aluminum 

smelter, Intalco Aluminum LLC, which 

the EPA designated nonattainment for 

the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). Washington also 

submitted a request for the EPA to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision containing a maintenance 

plan for the area. The EPA is taking the 

following final actions: we have 

determined that the Whatcom County 

(partial) SO2 nonattainment area 

(Whatcom County area or area) is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101897 

1See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at pages 

79200–79202. 

2See Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment, 

Control Measures, and Maintenance Demonstration, 

at pages 35–43. 

3 42 U.S.C. 7505a and the September 4, 1992, 

Memorandum from John Calcagni titled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment.’’ 

4See 201_Appendix A Whatcom County SO2

Area Designation.pdf, included in the docket for 

this action. 

5See Chapter 5, Emissions Inventory, at pages 

25–34. 

attaining the 2010 1-hour primary SO2

NAAQS; we are approving 

Washington’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary 

SO2 NAAQS in the area; and we are 

redesignating the Whatcom County area 

to attainment for the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 16, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0371. 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 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 will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person listed 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means the 

EPA. 

I. Background 

On September 27, 2024 (89 FR 79195), 

The EPA proposed to take the following 

four separate but related actions: (1) 

determine that the Whatcom County 

area is attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS; (2) approve Washington’s plan 

for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS (maintenance plan), including 

proposed approval of a ‘‘reproducible 

approach’’ to representing the air 

quality of the affected area; (3) 

redesignate the Whatcom County area to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS; and (4) determine that the 

Whatcom County area has clean 

monitoring data. 

The public comment period for the 

proposed actions closed on October 28, 

2024. We received two anonymous 

comments, document EPA–R10–OAR– 

2024–0371–0014 (comment #1) and 

EPA–R10–OAR–2024–0371–0015 

(comment #2). Both comments 

expressed support for the EPA’s 

approval of Washington’s redesignation 

request and maintenance plan. 

However, comment #1 and comment #2 

raised concerns about Washington’s 

ability to verify continued attainment. 

In addition, comment #2 suggested the 

contingency measures contain more 

specificity and that Washington should 

include a public accessibility plan in its 

Maintenance Plan. The full text of the 

comments may be found in the docket 

for this action, and we have responded 

to the relevant comments in section II. 

of this preamble. Under the Clean Air 

Act (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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 

II. EPA Responses to Comments 

Received 

A. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

Comment: The EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking provided a synopsis of 

Washington’s strategy for verification of 

continued attainment in the area as part 

of the State’s maintenance plan.1 A 

more detailed explanation of 

Washington’s ‘‘reproducible approach’’ 

to representing air quality, submitted to 

allow future monitor system 

modification under 40 CFR 58.14(c)(3), 

was provided in the maintenance plan 

itself.2 With respect to this issue, 

comment #1 contains the statement, 

‘‘although this has well solidified 

evidence, it is necessary to continue 

monitoring the nonattainment and 

attainment areas of Whatcom County to 

ensure the air quality stays in line with 

the EPA’s NAAQS. If the EPA did 

approve the request from Washington 

State it would further confirm the EPA’s 

dedication to implementing their own 

policies.’’ Comment #2 states, ‘‘while 

the plan allows for flexibility in 

adjusting SO2 monitoring sites, it is 

crucial to consider that SO2 impacts 

often disproportionately affect 

vulnerable communities. Could the EPA 

establish clearer criteria or a more 

rigorous review process before 

relocating or decommissioning 

monitors? This would ensure that 

communities previously affected by 

emissions from the Intalco facility 

continue to have adequate air quality 

protections, even in the absence of a 

large point source.’’ 

Response: We agree that Washington’s 

maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for monitoring air quality in 

the area and verifying continued 

attainment. As discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rulemaking, 

the maintenance plan contains these 

provisions and otherwise meets the 

maintenance plan requirements in CAA 

section 175A and the EPA’s associated 

guidance.3 Neither comment directly 

addresses the EPA’s evaluation of these 

provisions in the preamble to the 

proposed rulemaking nor provides a 

basis for disapproving Washington’s 

maintenance plan. To the extent the 

comments imply that the maintenance 

plan is inadequate to monitor and verify 

continued attainment or lacks 

specificity in this regard, we disagree. 

The following discussion summarizes 

Washington’s approach to monitoring 

air quality in the area post-redesignation 

and verifying continued attainment. 

In the EPA’s December 2020 technical 

support document for the 

nonattainment designation, we 

determined the region of violation was 

most likely due to plume downwash at 

the Intalco facility during certain wind 

conditions, that the modeled area of 

violation did not extend far from the 

Intalco facility fence line, that the 

gradient of concentration near the areas 

of violation was steep, quickly dropping 

with distance from the Intalco facility 

fence line, and that other nearby 

industrial facilities did not sufficiently 

contribute to violations of the 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS to warrant 

inclusion in the nonattainment area 

boundary.4 In our final nonattainment 

boundary determination, we concurred 

with the Washington Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) and Northwest Clean 

Air Agency (NWCAA) that the boundary 

should be drawn to encompass the 

cause of the SO2 violations, the Intalco 

facility. 

With the permanent closure of the 

Intalco facility, Washington’s 

comprehensive emissions inventory, 

prepared as part of the maintenance 

plan, shows no remaining significant 

sources of SO2, including mobile or area 

source emissions.5 Therefore, in the 

absence of any current SO2 emission 

sources, Washington’s monitoring 

network and verification of continued 

attainment strategy focused on potential 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101898 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6See Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment, 

Control Measures, and Maintenance Demonstration, 

at pages 35–43. 

7See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page 

79201. 

8See Chapter 2, Intalco—Ferndale SO2

Nonattainment Area, at pages 8–9. 

9See 201_Appendix A Whatcom County SO2

Area Designation.pdf and 202_Intalco Sulfur 

Dioxide Attainment Plan_2202035.pdf, included in 

the docket for this action. 

10See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page 

79202. 

11CAA section 175A(d). 

future emission sources that may be 

located within the area.6

As described in our proposed 

rulemaking and the State’s maintenance 

plan, the new source review (NSR) 

program ensures that any single facility 

applying for a permit to locate within 

the area complies with the NAAQS and 

other regulatory requirements.7 In 

addition, Washington’s maintenance 

plan included a stepwise process for 

assessing the cumulative impacts of new 

sources constructed in the area and 

triggering deployment of SO2 monitors. 

This process ensures that cumulative 

impacts remain below the NAAQS 

should multiple facilities move to the 

area. Under the maintenance plan 

verification of continued attainment 

provisions, Washington, with NWCAA 

as the lead agency for the jurisdiction in 

coordination with Ecology, will evaluate 

the cumulative impacts of the new 

source or modifications using three 

sequential ‘‘Action Levels.’’ 

Under Action Level 1, Washington 

will conduct cumulative dispersion 

modeling using potential emissions if 

two conditions are met: (1) the 

cumulative potential SO2 emissions in 

the area are greater than or equal to 250 

tons per year of SO2 and (2) the 

proposed new source or modification 

has the potential to emit 40 tons per 

year of SO2 (the significant emission 

rate under the major NSR program). 

Washington will use the EPA’s preferred 

screening and dispersion modeling tools 

identified in 40 CFR part 51 appendix 

W (‘‘Appendix W’’) as normally 

applicable for any source seeking a 

construction permit under the NSR 

program. If the results of the modeling 

under Action Level 1 indicate a design 

concentration of greater than or equal to 

90% of the 1-hour NAAQS, then 

Washington will proceed to Action 

Level 2. 

Under Action Level 2, Washington 

will conduct refined dispersion 

modeling that uses actual emissions 

from existing sources and potential 

emissions from the new source or 

modification. If the results of that 

modeling indicate a design 

concentration of greater than or equal to 

50% of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, then 

Washington will proceed to Action 

Level 3. 

Under Action Level 3, Washington 

will deploy SO2 ambient monitors 

within 1 year of the initial startup of the 

new source or modification. Any new 

monitors established for verification of 

continued attainment will be operated 

as State and Local Air Monitoring 

Stations (SLAMS) as part of Ecology’s 

Primary Quality Assurance Organization 

(PQAO). Ecology will verify that 

monitor siting complies with 40 CFR 

part 58 appendix E (Probe and 

Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring) and 

will include any new site proposals in 

its annual Ambient Air Monitoring 

Network Plan. This plan is available for 

public inspection and comment for at 

least 30 days before its submission to 

the EPA by July 1 of each year. Any 

such proposal will be subject to review 

and approval by the EPA Regional 

Administrator, following the process 

described in 40 CFR 58.10. 

Therefore, we disagree with the 

implication in comment #2 that the 

verification of continued attainment 

framework described in the State’s 

maintenance plan lacked clear criteria 

or a rigorous review process. The 

commenter provided no details for 

improving the methodology or raising 

specific concerns with the presented 

framework. 

With respect to the broader issue of 

protecting ‘‘communities previously 

affected by emissions from the Intalco 

facility’’ we agree with the commenter 

that these communities should be 

protected against future violations of 

health-based air quality standards. 

Washington’s maintenance plan does so, 

and the commenter did not provide any 

specific reasons why the EPA should 

find to the contrary. We note that during 

the operation of the Intalco facility, the 

areas impacted by the elevated levels of 

SO2 were very close to the facility’s 

fence line and did not reach the nearby 

city of Ferndale.8 More importantly, 

there are no current SO2 sources in the 

area or SO2 exposure risks. Current 

2021–2023 design value SO2

concentrations in the area are 3 parts 

per billion (ppb), much lower than the 

EPA’s health-based NAAQS of 75 ppb. 

With respect to monitoring, we 

reiterate that the current monitors were 

sited for the specific purpose of 

measuring building downwash impacts 

immediately surrounding the Intalco 

facility and thus are not necessarily 

suitable to assessing impacts to the 

surrounding community.9 Accordingly, 

Washington included in its maintenance 

plan its reproducible approach to 

assessing future impacts on the 

community from new sources. This 

approach—coupled with NWCAA and 

Washington’s NSR program—is 

adequate to ensure future development 

does not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Contingency Measures 

Comment: Comment #2 stated ‘‘while 

the contingency measures are welldefined, additional detail about specific 

control measures and response 

timelines would help reassure the 

public of the plan’s robustness. 

Particularly, if SO2 levels approach the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) threshold, having a more 

explicit list of immediate actions the 

EPA or the Northwest Clean Air Agency 

(NWCAA) would take would 

demonstrate the agency’s commitment 

to rapid response in the event of future 

exceedances.’’ 

Response: We disagree that 

Washington’s contingency measures 

should be more specific. As discussed 

in the preamble of our proposed 

rulemaking, the only significant source 

of SO2 in the area has permanently shut 

down, thus the cause of any potential 

future NAAQS exceedance is unknown. 

Therefore, Washington cannot develop 

specific contingency measures as part of 

its maintenance plan.10 Rather, 

Washington committed to concrete 

trigger levels and timelines for 

determining the appropriate 

contingency measures, but did not 

include specific measures in its 

maintenance plan. Therefore, our 

position remains that Washington’s 

maintenance plan contains such 

contingency provisions as the 

Administrator deems necessary to 

assure that the State will promptly 

correct any violation of the standard 

which occurs after the redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area.11

C. Impacts of Future Sources 

Comment: Comment #2 stated ‘‘while 

I understand that the Clean Air Act may 

not require environmental justice 

analysis for this action, it would be 

prudent to consider the impacts of 

future sources or monitoring changes on 

historically marginalized communities. 

The inclusion of a public accessibility 

plan to provide real-time air quality data 

would support EPA’s goals under 

Executive Order 12898, ensuring fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all residents in air quality decisions.’’ 

Response: The EPA responded to the 

commenter’s concern regarding 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101899 

12Rule 300.1(A); 300.4. 

13Rule 300.9. 

14 40 CFR 52.2470(c); WAC 173–400–113 and 

WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750. 

monitoring changes in section II.A of 

this preamble. With respect to impacts 

of future sources, our proposed 

rulemaking discussed how the NSR 

permitting program is the mechanism 

the EPA, States, and local clean air 

agencies use to assess the impacts of 

future sources. Washington’s SIP 

includes NWCAA Rule 300 which 

establishes the minor NSR program 

applicable to sources constructed or 

modified in the Ferndale Area. Under 

Rule 300, save for certain limited 

exemptions, sources with a potential to 

emit more than 2.0 tons per year (tpy) 

of SO2 must obtain approval prior to 

construction.12 NWCAA may not 

approve construction or modification 

unless, among other things, the source 

will employ best available control 

technology and allowable emissions 

will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS.13 As to the 

latter, NWCAA may require modeling 

using the EPA guidelines in appendix W 

of 40 CFR part 51 to determine whether 

construction and operation of the source 

will cause or contribute to a violation of 

any NAAQS. 

Washington’s SIP also includes a 

major new source review program to 

regulate the construction and 

modification of major sources 

constructed or modified in the Ferndale 

Area.14 In general, Washington’s major 

NSR program incorporates by reference 

the Federal major NSR program at 40 

CFR 52.21. The major NSR program 

applies to sources with a potential to 

emit of 100 tpy of any regulated NSR 

pollutant for certain listed source 

categories, and 250 tpy of any regulated 

NSR pollutant for unlisted sources. 

Regulated NSR pollutant includes 

pollutants for which the EPA has 

established a NAAQS. Similar to the 

minor NSR program, all sources subject 

to the major NSR program must obtain 

a permit before commencing 

construction. In order to obtain a 

permit, the source must, among other 

things, demonstrate the source will 

apply best available control 

technologies for each regulated NSR 

pollutant that the source has the 

potential to emit in significant amounts. 

In the case of SO2, the significant 

emissions rate is 40 tpy. In addition, the 

source must demonstrate through 

dispersion modeling that construction 

and operation of the source will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any 

NAAQS or violate any prevention of 

significant deterioration increment. We 

believe the NSR permitting programs 

described above provide the best tools 

available for assessing impacts to 

communities from future sources. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated in our proposed 

rulemaking (89 FR 79195, September 27, 

2024) and in section II. of this preamble, 

we are taking the following three 

separate but related final actions: (1) 

determining that the Whatcom County 

area is attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS; (2) approving Washington’s 

plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS, including approval of a 

‘‘reproducible approach’’ to 

representing the air quality of the 

affected area; and (3) redesignating the 

Whatcom County area to attainment for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Specifically, as described in our 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA has 

determined that the Whatcom County 

area is attaining the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS based on the most 

recent complete monitoring data for the 

three-year (2021–2023) design value 

period. 

The EPA is approving the 

maintenance plan under the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS for the Whatcom 

County area into the Washington SIP 

(under CAA section 175A). The 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

area will continue to maintain the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS and includes a 

process to develop and implement 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS and procedures for evaluating 

potential violations. 

The EPA has determined that the 

Whatcom County area has met the 

criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

for redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. On this basis, the EPA is 

approving Washington’s redesignation 

request for the area. Accordingly, the 

EPA is revising the legal designation of 

the portion of Whatcom County 

designated nonattainment at 40 CFR 

81.348 to attainment for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. 

The EPA is not finalizing a Clean Data 

Determination for the Whatcom County 

area. As noted in our proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA proposed the 

option to finalize a clean data 

determination in the event that the EPA 

did not finalize the proposed 

redesignation. However, because the 

EPA is finalizing the redesignation of 

the area to attainment, it is not 

finalizing this portion of the proposal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment is an action that 

affects the status of a geographical area 

and does not impose any additional 

regulatory requirements on sources 

beyond those imposed by State law. A 

redesignation to attainment does not in 

and of itself create any new 

requirements, but rather results in the 

applicability of requirements contained 

in the CAA for areas that have been 

redesignated to attainment. 

In addition, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Clean Air Act and applicable Federal 

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

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve State choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. 

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 final 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 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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 Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101900 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ The EPA further defines the 

term fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no 

group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ The Washington Department 

of Ecology did evaluate environmental 

justice considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis 

and did not consider EJ in this action. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of Executive Order 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

In addition, this final action, 

pertaining to redesignation of the 

Whatcom County area and approval of 

a maintenance plan for the area, would 

not be approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has 

demonstrated that a Tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule would not have Tribal 

implications and would not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

Tribes located near the Whatcom 

County area, in letters dated July 25, 

2024 and July 29, 2024, included in the 

docket for this action. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 February 18, 

2025. 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 11, 2024. 

Daniel Opalski, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

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 WW—Washington 

■ 2. In § 52.2470, amend paragraph (e), 

table 2, by adding the heading 

‘‘Attainment and Maintenance 

Planning—Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)’’ and 

the entry ‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Maintenance Plan’’ immediately after 

the entry for ‘‘Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Maintenance Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maintenance Plan.Whatcom County ........................ 7/25/24 12/17/2024, [INSERT FIRST 

PAGE OF FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.348, amend the table 

entitled ‘‘Washington—2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS’’ by revising the entry 

for ‘‘Whatcom County (part)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.348 Washington. 

* * * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101901 

1A DV is a statistic used to compare data 

collected at an ambient air quality monitoring site 

to the applicable NAAQS to determine compliance 

with the standard. The data handling conventions 

for calculating DVs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are 

specified in appendix U to 40 CFR part 50. The DV 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of 

the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration. The DV is calculated 

for each air quality monitor in an area, and the DV 

for an area is the highest DV among the individual 

monitoring sites located in the area. 

WASHINGTON—2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS 

[Primary] 

Designated area 1

Designation 

Date 2 Type 

Whatcom County (part) .................................................................................................. January 16, 2025 ............... Attainment. 

That portion of Whatcom County encompassed by the rectangle with the 

vertices using Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM zone 

10 with datum NAD83 as follows: (1) Vertices—UTM Easting (m) 519671, 

UTM Northing (m) 5412272; (2) Vertices—UTM Easting (m) 524091, UTM 

Northing (m) 5412261; (3) Vertices—UTM Easting (m) 519671, UTM Northing 

(m) 5409010; (1) Vertices—UTM Easting (m) 524111, UTM Northing (m) 

5409044.

* * * * * * * 

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. 2This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–29575 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2024–0546; FRL–12410– 

01–R5] 

Findings of Failure To Attain and 

Reclassification of Areas in Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin as Serious for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final determination. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is determining that the 

Allegan County, MI; Berrien County, MI; 

Chicago, IL-IN-WI; Cleveland, OH; 

Milwaukee, WI; Muskegon County, MI; 

Sheboygan County, WI; and Illinois 

portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL areas 

failed to attain the 2015 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment 

date. The effect of failing to attain by the 

applicable attainment date is that the 

areas will be reclassified by operation of 

law to ‘‘Serious’’ nonattainment for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS on January 16, 

2025, the effective date of this final rule. 

This action fulfills EPA’s obligation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to 

determine whether ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the 

NAAQS by the attainment date and to 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register identifying each area that is 

determined as having failed to attain 

and identifying the reclassification. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 16, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2024–0546. 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, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI), Proprietary Business 

Information (PBI), 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 through https://

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–4489 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Svingen, Air and Radiation Division 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 353–4489, svingen.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview of Action 

EPA is required to determine whether 

areas designated nonattainment for an 

ozone NAAQS attained the standard by 

the applicable attainment date, and to 

take certain steps for areas that failed to 

attain (see CAA section 181(b)(2)). 

EPA’s determination of attainment for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based on a 

nonattainment area’s design value (DV) 

as of the attainment date.1

The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at an 

EPA regulatory monitoring site when 

the DV does not exceed 0.070 parts per 

million (ppm). For the Moderate 

nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS addressed in this action, the 

attainment date was August 3, 2024. 

Because the DV is based on the three 

most recent, complete calendar years of 

data, attainment must occur no later 

than December 31 of the year prior to 

the attainment date (i.e., December 31, 

2023, in the case of Moderate 

nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS). As such, EPA’s 

determinations for each area are based 

upon the complete, quality-assured, and 

certified ozone monitoring data from 

calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023. 

This action addresses eight areas in 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin that were 

classified as Moderate for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS as of the Moderate area 

attainment date of August 3, 2024. EPA 

is addressing the remaining areas, 

including the Missouri portion of the St. 

Louis area, in separate actions. Table 1 

provides a summary of the DVs and the 

EPA’s air quality-based determinations 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1