[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 71 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19844-19856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7227]
[[Page 19843]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 71 / Thursday, April 14, 2005 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 19844]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, quality-assured, 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 e-mail at: [email protected].
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:
[email protected].
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 e-mail at: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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 Connecticut, Maine,
Programs Branch, EPA New England, I Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1661.
Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Branch, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, Rico, and Virgin Islands.
25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866,
(212) 637-4249.
Makeba Morris, Branch Chief, Air Delaware, District of Columbia,
Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region Maryland, Pennsylvania,
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Virginia, and West Virginia.
PA 19103-2187, (215) 814-2187.
[[Page 19845]]
Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Regulatory Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Development Section, EPA Region IV, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Sam Nun Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Carolina, South Carolina, and
Forsyth Street, SW., 12th Floor, Tennessee.
Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9033.
Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Minnesota, Ohio, and
Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886- Wisconsin.
4447.
Donna Ascenzi, Acting Associate Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Director Air Programs, EPA Region VI, Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202,
(214) 665-2725.
Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Branch, EPA Region VII, 901 North 5th Nebraska.
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101-
2907, (913) 551-7606.
Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Colorado, Montana, North
Radiation Program, EPA Region VIII, Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
999 18th, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202, and Wyoming.
(303) 312-6005.
Steven Barhite, Air Planning Office, Arizona, California, Guam,
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, Hawaii, and Nevada.
San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-
3980.
Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X, Washington.
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Mail
Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6985.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
quality-assured, 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, quality-assured, 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-
[[Page 19846]]
2004 data). In each of these areas, all PM2.5 monitors have complete,
quality-assured, 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, quality-assured,
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other county in area
State County PM2.5 nonattainment 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
[[Page 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, GA-AL 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 [mu]g/m\3\. 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, GA-AL 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,
[[Page 19848]]
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).
[[Page 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.
[[Page 19850]]
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
[[Page 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.
0
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
0
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
0
2. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 81.301 Alabama.
* * * * *
Alabama--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
3. In Sec. 81.305, the ``California--PM2.5'' table is amended as
follows:
0
a. Under ``Lake Tahoe Air Basin:'' by revising the entry for ``Placer
County (part)''.
0
b. By revising the entry for ``Western Mojave Desert and Antelope
Valley''.
0
c. By removing the entries for ``San Diego, CA:'' and ``San Diego
County Tribal Area:''.
0
d. By adding a new entry for ``San Diego, CA'' at the end of table.
Sec. 81.305 California.
* * * * *
California--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation a
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------
Date 1 Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Lake Tahoe Air Basin:
* * * * * * *
Placer County (part):
That portion of Placer County within the ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
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.
* * * * * * *
Western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley:
[[Page 19852]]
Los Angeles County (part):
That portion of Los Angeles County which lies ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
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.
* * * * * * *
San Diego, CA:
San Diego County............................... ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
4. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 81.311 Georgia.
* * * * *
Georgia--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
5. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 81.314 Illinois.
* * * * *
Illinois--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Randolph County (part)
Baldwin Township......................... ........... Nonattainment.
[[Page 19853]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
6. In Sec. 81.315, the ``Indiana--PM2.5'' table is amended by revising
the entry for ``Elkhart, IN'' and ``Muncie, IN'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.315 Indiana.
* * * * *
Indiana--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
7. In Sec. 81.318, the ``Kentucky--PM2.5'' table is amended by
revising the entry for ``Lexington, KY'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.318 Kentucky.
* * * * *
Kentucky--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
8. In Sec. 81.319, the ``Louisiana--PM2.5'' table is revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 81.319 Louisiana.
* * * * *
Louisiana--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated \a\
Designation area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 19854]]
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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
9. In Sec. 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 ``Youngstown-Warren-
Sharon, OH-PA'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
[[Page 19855]]
Ohio--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation a
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 81.339, the ``Pennsylvania--PM2.5'' table is amended by
revising the entry for ``Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.339 Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation a
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
11. In Sec. 81.343, the ``Tennessee--PM2.5'' table is amended by
revising the entry for ``McMinn County, TN'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.343 Tennessee.
* * * * *
Tennessee--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation a
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 1 Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
McMinn County, TN:
McMinn County............................ ........... Unclassifiable/Attainment.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
0
12. In Sec. 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:
Sec. 81.349 West Virginia.
* * * * *
[[Page 19856]]
West Virginia--PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation a
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1 This 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