Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for Whatcom County, WA 2010 SO2 Nonattainment Area, 101896-101901 [2024-29575]
Download as PDF
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
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
1 See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at pages
79200–79202.
2 See Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment,
Control Measures, and Maintenance Demonstration,
at pages 35–43.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
101897
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
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.’’
4 See 201_Appendix A Whatcom County SO
2
Area Designation.pdf, included in the docket for
this action.
5 See Chapter 5, Emissions Inventory, at pages
25–34.
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101898
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
6 See
Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment,
Control Measures, and Maintenance Demonstration,
at pages 35–43.
7 See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page
79201.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
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
8 See Chapter 2, Intalco—Ferndale SO
2
Nonattainment Area, at pages 8–9.
9 See 201_Appendix A Whatcom County SO
2
Area Designation.pdf and 202_Intalco Sulfur
Dioxide Attainment Plan_2202035.pdf, included in
the docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
10 See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page
79202.
11 CAA section 175A(d).
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
12 Rule
300.1(A); 300.4.
300.9.
14 40 CFR 52.2470(c); WAC 173–400–113 and
WAC 173–400–700 through 173–400–750.
13 Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
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 1hour 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
101899
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
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
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
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
State submittal
date
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanations
*
*
Attainment and Maintenance Planning—Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maintenance Plan.
*
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
*
*
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
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
*
Washington.
*
17DER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
101901
WASHINGTON—2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE NAAQS
[Primary]
Designation
Designated area 1
Date 2
Whatcom County (part) ..................................................................................................
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.
*
*
*
*
Type
January 16, 2025 ...............
*
*
Attainment.
*
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.
*
*
*
*
*
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final determination.
AGENCY:
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 16, 2024
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:
DATES:
[FR Doc. 2024–29575 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am]
Jkt 265001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
1 A 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.
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 101896-101901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29575]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 101897]]
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
[email protected].
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at pages 79200-79202.
\2\ See Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment, Control Measures,
and Maintenance Demonstration, at pages 35-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 201_Appendix A Whatcom County SO2 Area
Designation.pdf, included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 101898]]
future emission sources that may be located within the area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Chapter 5, Emissions Inventory, at pages 25-34.
\6\ See Chapter 6, Verification of Attainment, Control Measures,
and Maintenance Demonstration, at pages 35-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page 79201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Chapter 2, Intalco--Ferndale SO2
Nonattainment Area, at pages 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Contingency Measures
Comment: Comment #2 stated ``while the contingency measures are
well-defined, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 89 FR 79195 (September 27, 2024) at page 79202.
\11\ CAA section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 101899]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Rule 300.1(A); 300.4.
\13\ Rule 300.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 40 CFR 52.2470(c); WAC 173-400-113 and WAC 173-400-700
through 173-400-750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 101900]]
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
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart WW--Washington
0
2. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
geographic or State submittal EPA approval
Name of SIP provision nonattainment date date Explanations
area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Whatcom County.. 7/25/24 12/17/2024,
Maintenance Plan. [INSERT FIRST
PAGE OF FEDERAL
REGISTER
CITATION].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.348, amend the table entitled ``Washington--2010 Sulfur
Dioxide NAAQS'' by revising the entry for ``Whatcom County (part)'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.348 Washington.
* * * * *
[[Page 101901]]
Washington--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
[Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation
Designated area \1\ --------------------------------------
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.
\2\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-29575 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P