Air Quality Designations for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards-Supplemental Amendments, 19844-19856 [05-7227]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 71 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19844-19856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/particles/
designations/index.htm and on the Tribal Web site at: https://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: 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 e-mail 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    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: 
https://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: 
https://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