Thursday,

April 14, 2005

Part II

Environmental 

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 81

Air Quality Designations for the Fine 

Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards—Supplemental 

Amendments; Final Rule

19844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2003–0061; FRL–7896–8] 

RIN–2060–AM04 

Air Quality Designations for the Fine 

Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards—Supplemental 

Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; supplemental 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: On January 5, 2005, EPA 

promulgated air quality designations for 

all areas for the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particles (i.e. particles less than 2.5 

microns in diameter, also known as 

PM2.5) (70 FR 944). We designated 47 

areas composed of 224 counties and the 

District of Columbia as nonattainment. 

We designated 5 areas comprised of 7 

counties as unclassifiable. We 

designated the remaining counties in 

the United States as attainment/

unclassifiable. We based the 

designations in the January 5, 2005, 

final rule on air quality monitoring data 

from the 3-year period of 2001 to 2003. 

In that action, we provided that these 

designations would be effective 90 days 

from the date of publication in the 

Federal Register, which is April 5, 

2005. Because the designations occurred 

at the end of 2004, we indicated our 

desire to consider 2004 data where 

feasible in order to evaluate attainment 

status based upon data from the 3-year 

period of 2002 to 2004. We explained 

that we would consider any complete, 

quality-assured, and certified 2004 

PM2.5 data submitted by any State to 

EPA by February 22, 2005, if such data 

indicated that a change in the 

designation for the entire area would be 

appropriate. 

In the January 5, 2005, action, we 

stated that if EPA agreed that a change 

in the designation was appropriate 

based upon the inclusion of 2004 data, 

then EPA would withdraw the initial 

designation for the area and issue a 

designation that reflected the 

consideration of the new data before the 

April 5, 2005, effective date. Today’s 

action addresses areas for which States 

have submitted complete, qualityassured, and certified PM2.5 air quality 

data for 2004, and it modifies the 

designation status to attainment for 

eight areas we originally designated as 

nonattainment and for four areas we 

originally designated as unclassifiable. 

This action also includes technical 

corrections related to boundary 

descriptions for a few areas included in 

the January 5, 2005, action. The EPA has 

received a number of other petitions in 

connection with the PM2.5 designations 

pertaining to issues other than inclusion 

of 2004 data as a basis for changing the 

designation prior to the effective date. 

The EPA is not responding to those 

petitions in this document and will be 

evaluating and responding to those 

petitions separately.

DATES: Effective upon April 5, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0061. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in the 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Office 

of Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. In 

addition, we have placed a copy of the 

rule and a variety of materials regarding 

designations on EPA’s designation Web 

site at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/

particles/designations/index.htm and 

on the Tribal Web site at: http://www/

epa.gov/air/tribal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Designations: Mr. Rich Damberg, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Mail Code C504–02, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

phone number (919) 541–5592 or by email at: damberg.rich@epa.gov. 

Designations and Part 81 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR): Larry D. 

Wallace, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Mail Code 

C504–02, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, phone number (919) 541–0906 or 

by e-mail at: wallace.larry@epa.gov. 

Technical Issues Related to 

Designations: Mr. Thomas Rosendahl, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Mail Code C504–02, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

phone number (919) 541–5314 or by email at: rosendahl.tom@epa.gov. 

PM2.5 Air Quality Data Issues: Mr. 

Mark Schmidt, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Mail Code C–

304–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, phone number (919) 541–5314 or 

by e-mail at: schmidt.mark@epa.gov.

Region I—Alison Simcox (617) 918–

1684, 

Region II—Kenneth Fradkin (212) 637–

3702, 

Region III—Denny Lohman (215) 814–

2192, 

Region IV—Steve Scofield (404) 562–

9034, 

Region V—John Summerhays (312) 886–

6067, 

Region VI—Joe Kordzi (214) 665–7186, 

Region VII—Amy Algoe-Eakin (913) 

551–7942, 

Region VIII—Libby Faulk (303) 312–

6083, 

Region IX—Eleanor Kaplan (415) 744–

1286, 

Region X—Keith Rose (206) 553–1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

public may inspect the rule and the 

technical support information at the 

following locations:

Regional offices States 

Dave Conroy, Acting Branch Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New 

England, I Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023, 

(617) 918–1661.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont. 

Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. 

Makeba Morris, Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2187, (215) 814–

2187.

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19845

Regional offices States 

Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, EPA Region IV, Sam Nun Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562–9033.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West 

Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886–4447.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

Donna Ascenzi, Acting Associate Director Air Programs, EPA Region 

VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665–2725.

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101–2907, (913) 551–7606.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region 

VIII, 999 18th, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312–6005.

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Steven Barhite, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–3980.

Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada. 

Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region 

X, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code OAQ–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–6985.

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 

Table of Contents 

The following is an outline of the 

Preamble.

I. What Is the Purpose of Today’s Action? 

II. Designation Decisions Based on 2002–

2004 Data 

III. Technical Corrections for Area 

Boundaries 

IV. Significance of Today’s Action 

V. Effective Date of Today’s Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Congressional Review Act 

K. Judicial Review

I. What Is the Purpose of Today’s 

Action? 

On January 5, 2005, EPA promulgated 

air quality designations for all areas in 

the United States for the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 (70 FR 944), in accordance with 

section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The list of areas in each State, 

the boundaries of each area, and the 

designation of each area, appear in a 

table at the end of that action. The 

purpose of today’s action is to modify 

the PM2.5 designation for a number of 

areas that we designated nonattainment 

or unclassifiable in the January 5, 2005 

action, and to make certain technical 

corrections to the table of areas 

described in 40 CFR part 81.

The January 5, 2005, PM2.5 

designations were based on air quality 

data for 2001 through 2003. We 

designated 47 areas comprised of 224 

counties and the District of Columbia 

were designated as nonattainment. We 

designated 5 areas comprised of 7 

counties as unclassifiable. We 

designated the remaining counties in 

the United States as attainment/

unclassifiable. We based the 

designations in the January 5, 2005, 

action on air quality monitor data from 

the 3-year period of 2001 to 2003. The 

action provided that these designations 

would be effective 90 days from the date 

of publication (i.e. April 5, 2005). 

Because the designation process 

occurred so close to the end of the 2004 

calendar year, EPA indicated that we 

would consider any complete, qualityassured, and certified PM2.5 data for 

2004 submitted by any State by 

February 22, 2005, if such data 

indicated that the attainment status for 

the entire area, based on 2002–2004 

data, would differ from the status 

indicated in the January 5 action. In 

other words, we indicated that the 

agency would consider changing the 

designation status of an area from 

nonattainment to attainment, or 

unclassifiable to attainment, if each

monitor in the initially designated area 

had air quality data for the 2002–2004 

period below the level of the standards. 

The EPA received complete, qualityassured, and certified air quality data for 

2004 from a number of States prior to 

February 22, 2005. Based on our 

evaluation of this data, in today’s action, 

EPA is changing the designation status 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

eight areas, and from unclassifiable to 

attainment for four areas. Today’s 

modifications to the initial designations 

for these areas do not represent 

‘‘redesignations’’ because these changes 

are being made prior to the effective 

date of the initial PM2.5 designations. 

We are making these changes to reflect 

the most recent 3 years of complete, 

quality-assured, and certified data that 

are available prior to the effective date 

of the designations. After April 5, 2005, 

any change in the PM2.5 designation 

status for an area, other than those that 

might result from a petition for 

reconsideration or error correction, 

would be subject to the redesignation 

provisions of section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA. 

In the January 5, 2005, action, we also 

stated that if certified 2004 data 

indicated a violation of the standard in 

an area we initially designated as 

attainment based on 2001–2003 data, 

EPA would evaluate the reason for the 

violation and determine the appropriate 

course of action, including the 

possibility of redesignation to 

nonattainment. No States submitted 

certified 2004 data by February 22, 

2005, to indicate that the status of any 

area should change from attainment or 

unclassifiable to nonattainment. The 

EPA has committed to evaluate all 2004 

data for areas initially designated as 

unclassifiable. Under existing 

regulations, States are required to certify 

air quality data for 2004 by July 1, 2005. 

At that time, EPA will evaluate whether 

a change of designation for an 

unclassifiable area is appropriate. 

II. Designation Decisions Based on 

2002–2004 Data 

Areas changing from nonattainment 

to attainment based on 2002–2004 data.

A number of States, including AL, CA, 

GA, IN, KY, OH, PA, TN, and WV, 

submitted certified 2004 air quality 

monitoring data to EPA by February 22, 

2005. (All correspondence from States 

related to this action can be found in 

docket OAR–2003–0061 for this action.) 

Based upon our technical evaluation of 

the certified 2004 data provided by 

these States, we have determined that 

the nonattainment designation for seven 

areas listed in the January 5 action 

(based on 2001–2003 data) should be 

changed to attainment (based on 2002–

19846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2004 data). In each of these areas, all 

PM2.5 monitors have complete, qualityassured, and certified data below the 

level of the PM2.5 standards for the 

2002–2004 period. These seven areas 

are:

—Athens, Georgia (Clarke county); 

—Elkhart, Indiana (Elkhart and St. 

Joseph’s counties); 

—Lexington, Kentucky (Fayette and 

Mercer counties); 

—Marion county, WV (Marion, 

Monangalia, and Harrison counties); 

—San Diego, California (San Diego 

county); 

—Toledo, Ohio (Lucas and Wood 

counties); and 

—Youngstown, OH-PA (Columbiana, 

Mahoning, and Trumbull counties, 

Ohio; Mercer county, Pennsylvania).

(A summary of the air quality data for 

these areas is included in the technical 

support document for this action. 

Comprehensive information for these 

areas is available from EPA’s Air 

Quality Subsystem at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/

index.htm.)

Areas changing from unclassifiable to 

attainment based on 2002–2004 data. In 

addition, we have determined that for 

four areas the unclassifiable designation 

in the January 5 action (based on 2001–

2003 data) should now be changed to 

attainment (based on 2002–2004 data). 

In each of these areas, all PM2.5 

monitors have complete, qualityassured, and certified data below the 

level of the PM2.5 standards for the 

2002–2004 period. These four areas are:

—Dekalb county, Alabama; 

—Gadsden, Alabama (Etowah county); 

—McMinn county, Tennessee; and 

—Muncie, Indiana (Delaware county).

(A summary of the air quality data for 

these areas is included in the technical 

support document for this action. 

Comprehensive information for these 

areas is available from EPA’s Air 

Quality Subsystem at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/

index.htm.)

For all of the areas changing from 

either nonattainment or unclassifiable to 

attainment based upon the 

consideration of 2004 data, EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

revise the initial designation announced 

in the January 5, 2005, action before the 

April 5, 2005, effective date. The EPA 

believes that the specific redesignation 

requirements of the CAA, including 

those set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), 

do not apply until after the effective 

date of a designation. The EPA has 

concluded that, where possible, 

inclusion of 2004 data results in the 

appropriate initial designation. 

Subsequent changes to the designation 

of these or other areas may require 

compliance with the statutory 

provisions governing the formal 

redesignation process. 

Requests to change individual 

counties to attainment. The EPA 

received requests from a number of 

States to change the status of a selected 

county within a larger nonattainment 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

based upon 2004 data. For five counties 

in four nonattainment areas (see table 

below), States submitted certified 2004 

data showing that the 2002–2004 value 

for all monitors in the specific county at 

issue is below the level of the PM2.5 

annual standard. In each of these 

situations, however, there are other 

monitors in the larger nonattainment 

area identified in the January 5, 2005 

action which continue to violate the 

annual standard based on 2002–2004 

data. The following table lists the State 

and county in question, the associated 

nonattainment area, and the other 

violating county in the area.

State County PM2.5 nonattainment area 

Other county in 

area violating with 

2002–2004 data 

Indiana .................................................................. Lake ..................................................................... Chicago .................. Cook County, IL 

Indiana .................................................................. Vanderburgh ........................................................ Evansville ............... Dubois County, IN 

Michigan ............................................................... Monroe ................................................................. Detroit .................... Wayne County, IL 

Ohio ...................................................................... Scioto, Lawrence ................................................. Huntington, WV-OH Cabell County, WV 

The EPA indicated in the January 5 

action that we would make changes in 

status from nonattainment to attainment 

based on certified 2004 data only for 

entire areas in which all PM2.5 

monitors were attaining: ‘‘If inclusion of 

2004 data causes an area to change from 

nonattainment to attainment, EPA will 

change the designation if every county 

in the area is neither monitoring a 

violation of the standards nor 

contributing to a violation of the 

standards in another nearby area.’’ In 

addition, EPA has examined the data 

and concluded that each of these 

counties continues to contribute to the 

overall air quality problem in the larger 

nonattainment area. As explained in the 

January 5, 2005 action, EPA has 

designated as nonattainment not only 

those counties with violating monitors, 

but also those nearby counties that 

contribute to the problem at the 

violating monitor. For these reasons, 

EPA is not changing the designation 

status for Lake and Vanderburgh 

Counties in Indiana, Monroe County in 

Michigan, and Scioto and Lawrence 

Counties in Ohio. The technical support 

document for this action includes 

additional discussion on each of these 

individual counties and nonattainment 

areas. 

Also, EPA received a number of 

petitions from States and local 

governments that did not meet our 

request for submission of 2004 data 

indicating that a change of designation 

was appropriate for the entire area. In 

general, these petitions pertained to the 

degree of contribution to nonattainment 

of one or more counties within a 

nonattainment area or to the boundaries 

of specific nonattainment areas. The 

EPA is evaluating these petitions and 

intends to respond to them separately at 

a later date. 

Chattanooga, TN request to invalidate 

multiple monitoring samples and 

change status to attainment. The 

Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air 

Pollution Control Bureau and the State 

of Georgia have submitted requests to 

EPA to invalidate samples for 25 days 

at monitors in Hamilton County, TN and 

Walker County, GA. They based their 

requests on claims that these sites were 

impacted by various fire events 

occurring in locations such as Kansas, 

Alaska, and Canada. Chattanooga 

claimed that if all such days were 

invalidated, then the Hamilton County, 

TN monitors would have incomplete 

data and could not remain designated as 

nonattainment. Georgia contended that 

if these samples were invalidated, the 

Walker County, GA monitor would then 

attain the standards. In addition, 

Georgia has maintained that if Walker 

County attains the standard, then the 

status for Catoosa County should be 

changed to attainment because the State 

claims its contribution to nonattainment 

does not extend to Hamilton County, 

TN. The EPA has concluded that 

Catoosa County contributes to both 

Hamilton and Walker Counties based 

upon evaluation of the factors applied 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19847

by EPA in the initial designation 

decision (particularly population, 

commuting, and emissions) as discussed 

in the original technical support 

document.

We have reviewed the data for the 25 

days in question and the supporting 

information provided by local and State 

agencies for the Chattanooga area. 

Previously, EPA disapproved the 

request to invalidate 10 days in 2002. 

For the 15 days in 2003 and 2004 

requested by Chattanooga to be 

invalidated due to fire impacts, EPA has 

determined that there is insufficient 

evidence to show impacts from the fire 

events for at least 7 of these days, and 

is disapproving the requests to 

invalidate air quality data for those 

days. This determination is based on 

EPA’s review of the supporting 

information provided to EPA, as well as 

additional analyses conducted by EPA. 

These analyses include back trajectories 

and a review of chemical composition 

data for the area, and they are available 

in the technical support document and 

docket for this action. 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to reach a final conclusion 

with respect to the remaining 8-flagged 

days. Even if it were appropriate to 

invalidate the data from all of the 

remaining days, the monitor in 

Hamilton County, TN would still violate 

the PM2.5 standards for 2002–2004 with 

a design value of 15.4. Assuming 

invalidation of all 7 days, the monitor 

in Walker County, GA would attain the 

standard at 14.8. However, even though 

the Walker County monitor would be 

below the level of the standard, we 

continue to conclude that Walker 

County contributes to the nonattainment 

problem at the Hamilton County, TN 

monitor, thus requiring the inclusion of 

that county in the nonattainment area. 

Thus, even if it was appropriate to 

invalidate all of the remaining 8-flagged 

days, EPA has determined that at least 

one county in the Chattanooga 

nonattainment area would continue to 

have a violating monitor. As stated in 

the January 5, 2005, action, we 

indicated that it might be appropriate to 

change the nonattainment designation 

of an area only if all monitors in the area 

show attainment. Because there is a 

continuing violation at one monitor in 

the area, and because there is continued 

contribution from the other counties to 

the violating monitor, EPA has 

determined that the area still would 

violate the standard even if all 

additional flagged days were 

invalidated. Moreover, any uncertainty 

concerning the possible invalidation of 

the remaining flagged days is not an 

appropriate basis for designating this 

area unclassifiable. That designation is 

reserved for those areas where EPA 

lacks sufficient information upon which 

to make a judgment whether or not the 

area is attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

this instance, given that invalidation of 

the remaining flagged days would not 

change the outcome, the area does not 

meet the NAAQS. For this reason, EPA 

is not modifying the nonattainment 

status of Hamilton County in Tennessee 

or Walker or Catoosa Counties in 

Georgia.

Columbus, GA-AL: Request for spatial 

averaging and request for attainment 

based on 2002–2004 data.

Any State or States requesting spatial 

averaging of PM2.5 monitoring sites 

must demonstrate that the sites meet 

several criteria as described in EPA 

regulations (40 CFR part 58.). First, the 

annual mean for each site must be 

within 20 percent of the annual mean 

calculated with spatial averaging. 

Second, the sites must show ‘‘similar 

day-to-day variability’’ (e.g., 0.60 

correlation). Third, the States must 

demonstrate that the sites are affected 

by the same emissions sources. Fourth, 

the States must provide adequate notice 

to the public of the proposed change in 

the monitoring plan and potential effect 

on attainment status, including a public 

hearing and opportunity for public 

comment. 

In June 2004, the States of Georgia 

and Alabama submitted proposed 

changes to their monitoring plans to 

conduct spatial averaging for three 

monitoring sites in the Columbus, GAAL area (two in Muscogee County, GA 

and one in Russell County, AL). In 

November 2004, EPA denied the request 

for spatial averaging on the basis that: 

(1) the submittal did not provide a basis 

for a 3-site community monitoring zone, 

and (2) the information did not 

demonstrate that all monitors were 

impacted by similar emissions sources. 

The letter also questioned the validity of 

several samples collected at the Russell 

county site during 2001 and 2002. 

In December 2004, both States 

submitted revised monitoring plans 

requesting spatial averaging for the two 

downtown monitoring sites, one in 

Muscogee County, GA and one in 

Russell County, AL. In February 2005, 

both States submitted certified 2004 

data for the two sites in question, and 

they also requested a change in status 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the area, provided that EPA approved 

their pending spatial averaging request 

and that 2002–2004 data for the two 

sites could be averaged. 

The EPA has conducted an extensive 

technical review of the information 

provided by both States to support the 

most recent spatial averaging proposals. 

Based on our review of a number of 

factors, we are approving the spatial 

averaging request. We also have 

determined that when 2002–2004 air 

quality data for the two sites are 

averaged, the Columbus, GA-AL 

metropolitan area now attains the PM2.5 

standards. The spatial average for 2002–

2004 is just under the standard at a level 

of 15.04. 

In evaluating the spatial averaging 

proposals, EPA considered a number of 

factors in accordance with the PM2.5 

NAAQS and PM2.5 monitoring 

regulations. The two monitors (one 

operated in Phenix City by AL and one 

in Columbus by GA) are less that 2 km 

apart. Both monitors are located in the 

inner city and are influenced by similar 

emission sources. The 3-year design 

value for each site is within ±2 percent 

of the new approved spatial average 

design value of 15.04. Furthermore, the 

monitors exhibit similar day-to-day 

variability indicated by a 0.85 

correlation of 24-hr concentrations. 

However, EPA also notes that annual 

concentrations at the two monitors are 

trending upward, with each site 

recording its highest annual average 

concentration in 2004. The 2004 average 

for these monitors is 15.4 μg/m3. The 

EPA also notes that the monitors exhibit 

the highest disparity in their 24-hr 

concentrations during the 1st calendar 

quarter. Therefore, EPA will continue to 

monitor the PM2.5 measurements 

particularly during the winter period to 

ensure that we have a continuing 

understanding of any air quality 

changes that may occur in the future. 

Therefore, for the above reasons and 

others discussed in the technical 

support document, EPA is approving 

the December 2004 2-site spatial 

averaging plan for the Columbus, GAAL nonattainment area in today’s 

action. It is therefore appropriate to 

change the designation of Muscogee 

County, GA and Russell County, AL 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Please refer to the technical support 

document for more detailed information 

on EPA’s review of the spatial averaging 

plan for this area. 

III. Technical Corrections for Area 

Boundaries 

In today’s rule, EPA is also making 

minor technical corrections to certain 

attainment area boundary descriptions 

included in the January 5 action. 

Technical corrections for boundaries 

listed in 40 CFR part 81 are included for 

the following areas: (1) The State of 

Louisiana to correct the listings for air 

quality control region 106, (2) the 

boundary description for Placer County, 

19848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

CA, (3) a change to the boundary 

description for Randolph County, IL to 

change Baldwin Village to Baldwin 

Township, and (4) the boundary 

description for Gallia County, OH to 

remove Addison Township and to 

include Cheshire Township. These 

corrections are being made to provide 

an accurate description of the 

boundaries for the affected areas as 

previously submitted to EPA by the 

States and/or included in the January 5 

technical support document. In the 

January 5, 2005, action, these errors 

were inadvertently made in the process 

of drafting the text for the part 81 tables. 

The corrections made by EPA in today’s 

rule are listed in the tables at the end 

of this notice, and these changes will be 

reflected in a revision of 40 CFR part 81.

IV. Significance of Today’s Action 

Based on the foregoing discussion, 

EPA is today making changes to the 

January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), rulemaking 

which designated areas for the PM2.5 

NAAQS. The corrections made by EPA 

in today’s rule, related to the 

designations for the PM2.5 standard, are 

set forth in the tables at the end of this 

notice, and will change the designation 

description for the affected areas in 40 

CFR part 81 initially announced in the 

January 5, 2005, action. States with 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS are required to 

submit State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) addressing nonattainment area 

requirements within 3 years of 

designation, pursuant to section 172 of 

the CAA. Therefore, within 3 years 

following the April 5, 2005, effective 

date for the designations identified in 

the January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), 

rulemaking, States will be required to 

submit SIPs for nonattainment areas. 

The EPA intends to issue another rule 

that will assist States in developing SIPs 

that meet the requirements of the CAA. 

The EPA plans to issue the proposal for 

that rulemaking in the near future. 

V. Effective Date of Today’s Action 

The effective date of designations of 

areas corrected or changed in today’s 

rule is April 5, 2005, the date indicated 

in the January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), 

PM2.5 designation rulemaking. The EPA 

is making these changes without notice 

and comment in accordance with 

section 107(d)(2) of the CAA, which 

exempts the promulgation of these 

designations from the notice and 

comment provisions of the 

Administrative Procedures Act. Section 

553(d) of the Administrative Procedures 

Act generally provides that rulemakings 

shall not be effective less than 30 days 

after publication except where a 

substantive rule relieves a restriction or 

where the agency finds good cause for 

an earlier date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and 

(3). Were EPA not to expedite the 

effective date of today’s action, a 

number of areas would continue to be 

designated nonattainment or 

unclassifiable, in spite of 2004 data that 

indicate a change of designation is 

appropriate. Because EPA has 

concluded that a change of designation 

is already appropriate based on 

available information, EPA believes that 

it would serve no purpose to require the 

States in question to pursue 

redesignation through other means that 

may result in delay and the unnecessary 

expenditure of resources. The effective 

date for today’s action is therefore 

justified because: (1) It relieves a 

restriction by eliminating a restriction 

by eliminating inappropriate 

nonattainment or unclassifiable 

designations that would otherwise 

become effective on April 5, 2005, and 

(2) it is in the public interest to avoid 

the potential delay and waste of 

resources associated with allowing the 

January 5, 2005 designations to go into 

effect for these areas. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA 

to designate areas with respect to their 

attainment of such NAAQS. The CAA 

imposes requirements for areas based 

upon whether such areas are attaining 

or not attaining the NAAQS. In this final 

rule, EPA assigns designations to areas 

as required. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because none of the 

above factors apply. As such, this final 

rule was not formally submitted to OMB 

for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule 

responds to the requirement to 

promulgate air quality designations after 

promulgation of a NAAQS. This 

requirement is prescribed in the CAA 

section 107 of title 1. The present final 

rule does not establish any new 

information collection apart from that 

required by law. Burden means that 

total time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. An Agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in the CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Today’s rule is not subject to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

rule that will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA 

applies only to rules subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) or any other statute. This rule is 

not subject to notice and comment 

requirements under the APA or any 

other statute because it was not subject 

to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements. See CAA section 

107(d)(2)(B).

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19849

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small government on compliance with 

regulatory requirements. 

Today’s final action does not include 

a Federal mandate within the meaning 

of UMRA that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any 1 year by either State, local, or 

Tribal governments in the aggregate or 

to the private sector, and therefore, is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It 

does not create any additional 

requirements beyond those of the PM2.5 

NAAQS (62 FR 38652; July 18, 1997), 

therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. 

This rule establishes the application of 

the PM2.5 standard and the designation 

for each area of the country for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The CAA requires 

States to develop plans, including 

control measures, based on their 

designations and classifications. 

One mandate that may apply as a 

consequence of this action to all 

designated nonattainment areas is the 

requirement under CAA section 176(c) 

and associated regulations to 

demonstrate conformity of Federal 

actions to SIPs. These rules apply to 

Federal agencies and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) making 

conformity determinations. The EPA 

concludes that such conformity 

determinations will not cost $100 

million or more in the aggregate. 

The EPA believes that any new 

controls imposed as a result of this 

action will not cost in the aggregate 

$100 million or more annually. Thus, 

this Federal action will not impose 

mandates that will require expenditures 

of $100 million or more in the aggregate 

in any 1 year. 

Nonetheless, EPA carried out 

consultation with government entities 

affected by this rule, including States, 

Tribal governments, and local air 

pollution control agencies. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, or the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA 

establishes the scheme whereby States 

take the lead in developing plans to 

meet the NAAQS. This rule will not 

modify the relationship of the States 

and EPA for purposes of developing 

programs to implement the NAAQS. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have ‘‘Tribal implications’’ as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. This rule 

concerns the designation and 

classification of areas as attainment and 

nonattainment for the PM2.5 air quality 

standard. The CAA provides for States 

to develop plans to regulate emissions 

of air pollutants within their 

jurisdictions. The Tribal Authority Rule 

(TAR) provides Tribes the opportunity 

to develop and implement CAA 

programs such as programs to attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but it 

leaves to the discretion of the Tribe the 

decision of whether to develop these 

programs and which programs, or 

appropriate elements of a program, the 

Tribe will adopt. 

This final rule does not have Tribal 

implications as defined by Executive 

Order 13175. It does not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has 

implemented a CAA program to attain 

the PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

Furthermore, this rule does not affect 

the relationship or distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. The 

CAA and the TAR establish the 

relationship of the Federal government 

and Tribes in developing plans to attain 

the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing 

to modify that relationship. Because this 

rule does not have Tribal implications, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule, EPA did outreach 

to Tribal leaders and environmental 

staff regarding the designations process. 

The EPA supports a national ‘‘Tribal 

Designations and Implementation Work 

Group’’ which provides an open forum 

for all Tribes to voice concerns to EPA 

about the designations and 

implementation process for the NAAQS, 

including the PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

discussions informed EPA about key 

Tribal concerns regarding designations 

as the rule was under development and 

gave Tribes the opportunity to express 

concerns about designations to EPA. 

Furthermore, EPA sent individualized 

letters to all federally recognized Tribes 

about EPA’s intention to designate areas 

for the PM2.5 standard and gave Tribal 

leaders the opportunity for consultation. 

19850 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health and safety risk 

that EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

EPA. 

This final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not have reason to believe that 

the environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this rule present a 

disproportionate risk or safety risk to 

children. Nonetheless, we have 

evaluated the environmental health or 

safety effects of the PM2.5 NAAQS on 

children. The results of this risk 

assessment are contained in the NAAQS 

for PM2.5, Final Rule (July 18, 1997, 62 

FR 38652).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Information on the methodology and 

data regarding the assessment of 

potential energy impacts is found in 

Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2002, Cost, 

Emission Reduction, Energy, and the 

Implementation Framework for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, prepared by the 

Innovative Strategies and Economics 

Group, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, April 24, 2003. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, 

Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impracticable. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the EPA decides not 

to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 801, whether major or not, a 

rule generally cannot take effect until 

after submission of a rule report, 

including a copy of the rule, to each 

House of Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. A statutory exception to that 

requirement is provided in 5 U.S.C. 

808(2), which provides that for a rule for 

which an agency for good cause finds 

‘‘that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impractical, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest, [the rule] 

shall take effect at such time as the 

Federal agency promulgating the rule 

determines.’’ The EPA finds that the 

criteria for the exception contained in 5 

U.S.C. 808(2) are satisfied for the 

following reasons. Section 107(d)(2)(B) 

of the CAA explicitly exempts the 

designation process from compliance 

with the notice and comment 

procedures of the Administrative 

Procedures Act and EPA has concluded 

that it is appropriate to promulgate the 

designations following the specific 

procedures provided within section 

107(d) of the CAA. Thus, EPA believes 

that additional notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. Given the 

short time period between the 

submission by States of 2004 data and 

today’s action, any such additional 

notice and public process would have 

been impracticable. Moreover, EPA has 

concluded that it is in the public 

interest to modify the designations of 

certain areas based upon inclusion of 

2004 data in order to avoid the potential 

for delay and the waste of resources for 

such areas to pursue redesignation 

through other means. Therefore, EPA 

finds that notice and public comment 

procedures are unnecessary, 

impracticable, and contrary to the 

public interest for this rule. Thus, in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), EPA 

has concluded that today’s rule can be 

effective on April 5, 2005. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 

K. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates 

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When 

EPA action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, if 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’

This rule designating areas for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS is ‘‘nationally 

applicable’’ within the meaning of 

section 307(b)(1). This rule establishes 

designations for all areas of the United 

States for the PM2.5 NAAQS. At the 

core of this rulemaking is EPA’s 

interpretation of the definition of 

nonattainment under section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. In determining which areas 

should be designated nonattainment (or 

conversely, should be designated 

attainment/unclassifiable), EPA used a 

set of nine technical factors that it 

applied consistently across the United 

States.

For the same reasons, the 

Administrator also is determining that 

the final designations are of nationwide 

scope and effect for the purposes of 

section 307(b)(1). This is particularly 

appropriate because in the report on the 

1977 Amendments that revised section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted 

that the Administrator’s determination 

that an action is of ‘‘nationwide scope 

or effect’’ would be appropriate for any 

action that has ‘‘scope or effect beyond 

a single judicial circuit.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 

95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. Here, the scope 

and effect of this rulemaking extends to 

numerous judicial circuits since the 

designations apply to all areas of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19851

country. In these circumstances, section 

307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls 

for the Administrator to find the rule to 

be of ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ and 

for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. 

Thus, any petitions for review of final 

designations must be filed in the Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days from the date 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 5, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Acting Administrator.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 81, subpart C is 

amended as follows:

PART 81—DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations

■ 2. In § 81.301, the ‘‘Alabama—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entries 

for ‘‘Columbus, GA-AL’’,‘‘DeKalb 

County, AL’’ and ‘‘Gadsen, AL’’ to read 

as follows:

§ 81.301 Alabama.

* * * * *

ALABAMA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Columbus GA-AL: 

Russell County, AL ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

DeKalb County, AL: 

DeKalb County ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

Gadsden, AL: 

Etowah County ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 3. In § 81.305, the ‘‘California—PM2.5’’

table is amended as follows:

■ a. Under ‘‘Lake Tahoe Air Basin:’’ by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Placer County 

(part)’’.

■ b. By revising the entry for ‘‘Western 

Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley’’.

■ c. By removing the entries for ‘‘San 

Diego, CA:’’ and ‘‘San Diego County 

Tribal Area:’’.

■ d. By adding a new entry for ‘‘San 

Diego, CA’’ at the end of table.

§ 81.305 California.

* * * * *

CALIFORNIA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

Lake Tahoe Air Basin: 

*******

Placer County (part): 

That portion of Placer County within the drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said Lake, plus that area in the vicinity of the head of the Truckee River described 

as follows: commencing at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area 

crestline and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount Diablo Base 

and Meridian, and following that line in a westerly direction to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 15 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, thence south 

along the west line of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 North, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the intersection with the said drainage area crestline, thence following the said drainage area boundary in a southeasterly, then northeasterly direction to 

and along the Lake Tahoe Dam, thence following the said drainage area crestline in a 

northeasterly, then northwesterly direction to the point of beginning.

.................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

Western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley: 

19852 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

CALIFORNIA—PM2.5—Continued

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

Los Angeles County (part): 

That portion of Los Angeles County which lies north and east of a line described as follows: 

Beginning at the Los Angeles—San Bernardino County boundary and running west along 

the Township line common to Township 3 North and Township 2 North, San Bernardino 

Base and Meridian; then north along the range line common to Range 8 West and Range 

9 West; then west along the Township line common to Township 4 North and Township 3 

North; then north along the range line common to Range 12 West and Range 13 West to 

the southeast corner of Section 12, Township 5 North and Range 13 West; then west 

along the south boundaries of Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7, Township 5 North and 

Range 13 West to the boundary of the Angeles National Forest which is collinear with the 

range line common to Range 13 West and Range 14 West; then north and west along the 

Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of intersection with the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North (point is at the northwest corner of Section 4 in Township 6 North and Range 14 West); then west along the Township line common to Township 7 North and Township 6 North; then north along the range line common 

to Range 15 West and Range 16 West to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 7 

North and Range 16 West; then along the south boundaries of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, and 18, Township 7 North and Range 16 West; then north along the range line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West to the north boundary of the Angeles National 

Forest (collinear with the Township line common to Township 8 North and Township 7 

North); then west and north along the Angeles National Forest boundary to the point of 

intersection with the south boundary of the Rancho La Liebre Land Grant; then west and 

north along this land grant boundary to the Los Angeles-Kern County boundary.

.................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

*******

San Diego, CA: 

San Diego County ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. In § 81.311, the ‘‘Georgia—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Clarke County’’ under the heading of 

‘‘Athens, GA,’’, and by revising the entry 

for ‘‘Muscogee’’ under the heading 

‘‘Columbus GA–AL’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.311 Georgia.

* * * * *

GEORGIA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

Athens, GA: 

Clarke County .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Columbus, GA–AL: 

Muscogee County ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 5. In § 81.314, the ‘‘Illinois—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Randolph County (part)’’ under the 

heading of ‘‘St. Louis, MO–IL’’ to read as 

follows:

§ 81.314 Illinois.

* * * * *

ILLINOIS—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

Randolph County (part) 

Baldwin Township ....................................................................................................................... .................... Nonattainment. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19853

ILLINOIS—PM2.5—Continued

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 6. In § 81.315, the ‘‘Indiana—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Elkhart, IN’’ and ‘‘Muncie, IN’’ to read 

as follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

Elkhart, IN: 

Elkhart County ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Joseph County ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

*******

Muncie, IN: 

Delaware County ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 7. In § 81.318, the ‘‘Kentucky—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Lexington, KY’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.318 Kentucky.

* * * * *

KENTUCKY—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

Lexington, KY: 

Fayette County ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Mercer County (part), .................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment 

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 8. In § 81.319, the ‘‘Louisiana—PM2.5’’

table is revised to read as follows:

§ 81.319 Louisiana.

* * * * *

LOUISIANA—PM2.5 

Designation area 

Designated a

Date 1 Type 

AQCR 019 Monroe-El Dorado Interstate: 

Caldwell Parish ........................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Catahoula Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Concordia Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

East Carroll Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Franklin Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

La Salle Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

19854 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

LOUISIANA—PM2.5—Continued

Designation area 

Designated a

Date 1 Type 

Madison Parish ........................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Morehouse Parish ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Ouachita Parish ........................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Richland Parish ........................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Tensas Parish ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Union Parish ................................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

West Carroll Parish ..................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

AQCR 022 Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler Interstate: 

Bienville Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Bossier Parish ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Caddo Parish .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Claiborne Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

De Soto Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Jackson Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Lincoln Parish .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Natchitoches Parish .................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Red River Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Sabine Parish .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Webster Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Winn Parish ................................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

AQCR 106 S. Louisiana-S.E. Texas Interstate: 

Acadia Parish .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Allen Parish ................................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Ascension Parish ........................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Assumption Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Avoyelles Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Beauregard Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Calcasieu Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Cameron Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

East Baton Rouge Parish ........................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

East Feliciana Parish .................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Evangeline Parish ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Grant Parish ................................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Iberia Parish ................................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Iberville Parish ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Jefferson Davis Parish ................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Jefferson Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Lafayette Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Lafourche Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Livingston Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Orleans Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Plaquemines Parish .................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Pointe Coupee Parish ................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Rapides Parish ............................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Bernard Parish ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Charles Parish ....................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Helena Parish ........................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. James Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. John the Baptist Parish ......................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Landry Parish ........................................................................................................................ .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Martin Parish ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

St. Tammany Parish ................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Tangipahoa Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Terrebonne Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Vermilion Parish .......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Vernon Parish ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Washington Parish ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

West Baton Rouge Parish .......................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

West Feliciana Parish ................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 9. In § 81.336, the ‘‘Ohio—PM2.5’’

table is amended by revising the entries 

for Gallia County under the heading of 

‘‘Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH’’, for 

‘‘Toledo, OH’’, and for ‘‘YoungstownWarren-Sharon, OH-PA’’ to read as 

follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 19855

OHIO—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Gallia County (part) 

Cheshire Township .......................................................................................................................... .................... Nonattainment. 

* * * * * * * 

Toledo, OH: 

Lucas County ................................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Wood County ................................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA: 

Columbiana County ......................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Mahoning County ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Trumbull County .............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * *

■ 10. In § 81.339, the ‘‘Pennsylvania—

PM2.5’’ table is amended by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, 

OH-PA’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania.

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania.

PENNSYLVANIA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

******

Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA: 

Mercer County ............................................................................................................................. .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 11. In § 81.343, the ‘‘Tennessee—

PM2.5’’ table is amended by revising the 

entry for ‘‘McMinn County, TN’’ to read 

as follows:

§ 81.343 Tennessee.

* * * * *

TENNESSEE—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

McMinn County, TN: 

McMinn County ........................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 12. In § 81.349, the ‘‘West Virginia—

PM2.5’’ table is amended by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Marion County, WV (aka 

Fairmont CBSA)’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.349 West Virginia.

* * * * *

19856 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

WEST VIRGINIA—PM2.5 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Marion County, WV (aka Fairmont CBSA): 

Harrison County (part).

Tax District of Clay ...................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Marion County ............................................................................................................................. Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

Monongalia County.

Tax District of Cass ..................................................................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

[FR Doc. 05–7227 Filed 4–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P