```

[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
```