34076 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1This signature date was a deadline for EPA 

action in accordance with a consent decree. The 

final rule was published on April 30, 2004. 69 FR 

23875.

2This letter supplements an earlier letter dated 

May 21, 2004, from Governor Kenny C. Guinn to 

Administrator Leavitt.

17, 2002, is adopted as a final rule 

without change.

[FR Doc. 04–13764 Filed 6–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2003–0083; FRL–7775–5] 

Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone; 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Deferral of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a deferral 

of the effective date, to September 13, 

2004, of the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment designation for Clark 

County, Nevada. This deferral is based 

on additional information submitted by 

the State demonstrating that, due to the 

late finding of nonattainment in the 

State, the State did not have sufficient 

time to recommend an appropriate 

boundary for the Las Vegas 

nonattainment area. EPA believes the 

relevant factors for defining a 

nonattainment area may support a 

different boundary recommendation 

than the one submitted by the State on 

April 12, 2004, and a short deferral will 

provide the State and EPA time to 

determine whether such an adjustment 

is appropriate. At the same time, it is 

certain that at least some portion of 

Clark County will be designated 

nonattainment. As such, we do not 

intend to use this extension of the 

effective date of the designation to affect 

the deadline for submittal of the State 

implementation plan that would 

otherwise apply if the effective date 

were not deferred and further believe 

the extension should not delay 

attainment of the ozone standard or the 

ability of the State to achieve attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on June 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

dockets for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0083 (Designations). 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 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/

glo/designations and on the Tribal Web 

site at: http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal. In 

addition, the public may inspect the 

rule and technical support at the 

following locations: 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, Air Division, 

Planning Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Barhite, Chief, Planning Office, 

Air Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. The telephone number 

is (415) 972–3980. Mr. Barhite can also 

be reached via electronic mail at 

barhite.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

The EPA is deferring the effective date 

of the nonattainment designation for 

Clark County, Nevada (County). This 

action modifies the effective date for 

Clark County provided in our final 8-

hour ozone designations rule published 

April 30, 2004. 69 FR 23858. In that 

final rule we noted that the effective 

date for the Clark County nonattainment 

designation would be June 15, 2004. See 

69 FR at 23919–20 (revising 40 CFR 

§ 81.329). With today’s action, the new 

effective date for the County’s 

nonattainment designation will be 

September 13, 2004. We are not 

changing the designation of the County 

at this time, but, as explained below, 

believe the deferral is necessary to allow 

the State of Nevada (State) to account 

for newly discovered information and 

accurately define the appropriate 

nonattainment area boundaries. 

II. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

On April 15, 2004, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule 

announcing designations under the 8-

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS).1 In that action we 

designated Clark County as 

nonattainment and provided that this 

designation would become effective on 

June 15, 2004. Since that notice, the 

State has submitted additional 

information explaining that the State’s 

recommendation on the area to be 

designated nonattainment should be 

reconsidered and that such an 

evaluation was not possible prior to 

EPA’s April 15, 2004 deadline for 

signing the 8-hour ozone designations. 

Letter from Allen Biaggi, Administrator, 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, to Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (June 9, 2004).2 In 

the June 9, 2004 letter the State explains 

that it did not have time to make an 

appropriate recommendation regarding 

the boundaries of the nonattainment 

area in Clark County because it was not 

discovered until late February 2004 that 

any portion of Nevada would be 

designated nonattainment.

The unusual history of the Clark 

County designation supports the State’s 

claim. In July 2003, the State submitted 

its recommended designations for the 8-

hour ozone designations. See letter from 

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA, Region IX (July 10, 2003). 

Based on the monitoring data provided 

to the State for the period of 2000 

through 2002, the State concluded that 

all monitors within the State were 

showing compliance with the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. On December 3, 2003, 

EPA agreed with the State’s 

recommendation not to designate any 

Nevada area as nonattainment for the 8-

hour ozone standard. See Letter from 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA, Region IX, to Hon. Kenny C. 

Guinn, Governor of Nevada (December 

3, 2004). In that letter EPA noted that 

the final designation determination 

would be based on monitoring data and 

design values for the period 2001 

through 2003, but that based on our 

preliminary review of the air quality 

monitoring data for the 2003 ozone 

season, there were no areas in Nevada 

violating the 8-hour ozone standard. Id. 

In mid-February 2004, EPA discovered 

that the July 10, 2003 recommendation 

from the State had failed to include 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 34077

3The May 21, 2004 letter from Governor Guinn 

and the June 9, 2004 letter from Allen Biaggi both 

note that the State has contracted with the Desert 

Research Institute to assist in assessing the 

appropriate boundaries.

complete monitoring data for 2001. This 

overlooked data, in combination with 

the new 2003 data, resulted in a 2001–

03 design value over the applicable 

standard at one of the monitors (Joe 

Neal) in the Las Vegas area of Clark 

County. EPA contacted the State and 

described that, by default, the 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA) that 

included Clark and Nye Counties in 

Nevada and Mohave County in Arizona 

should be recommended for designation 

as nonattainment. Arizona and Nevada 

were able to prepare an analysis of the 

ozone problem in the area that 

supported the exclusion of Nye and 

Mohave Counties from the 

nonattainment area. See Letter from 

Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA, Region IX (April 12, 2004) 

(transmitting Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) report 

entitled ‘‘Nevada Air Quality 

Designations and Boundary 

Recommendations for the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (March 26, 2004)); Letter 

from Stephen A. Owens, Director, 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX 

(March 26, 2004) (transmitting report 

entitled ‘‘Arizona Boundary 

Recommendations for the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (March 26, 2004)). As a 

result, three days before the EPA 

deadline for making designations, the 

State recommended that Clark County 

be designated nonattainment. Id. As the 

State has subsequently explained, had 

NDEP and Clark County discovered 

earlier that the County should be 

designated nonattainment, it would 

have further analyzed the appropriate 

boundaries within the 8000-square mile 

County for the nonattainment area. 

Given the late discovery, however, the 

State and County could not provide the 

necessary analysis and defaulted to the 

County boundaries.3 Given the size of 

the County, the geographic features of 

the area, the location of sources and the 

monitoring data collected in the 

outlying portions of the County, it is 

reasonable to conclude that further 

analysis could have supported an 

alternate boundary for the 

nonattainment area.

In the June 9, 2004 letter, the State 

further explains why the missing 

monitoring data were not discovered 

until late February, 2004. The 

monitoring data in question are from the 

new Joe Neal monitoring station, which 

began operation in 2000. As a result, it 

was not until the end of 2003 that three 

complete years of data were available 

upon which to calculate a design value. 

The State’s recommendation had not 

included the 2003 data, so it had not 

focused attention on this monitor 

because, at the time, it had mistakenly 

assumed the monitor had not been in 

existence long enough to have an effect 

on design values. According to the 

State, the State and County had an 

expectation that the 2001 data would 

not affect the design value for the 8-hour 

ozone designation. See June 9 Letter 

from Allen Biaggi. The County 

apparently did not realize certain 2001 

data had not been added to the Air 

Quality System—the system used to 

support the designation 

recommendations. Management at the 

County and State, and within EPA, 

looking at the monitoring data in the Air 

Quality System could not see that 

additional data were available that 

would have changed the designation 

conclusion. The State and County have 

demonstrated to our satisfaction that 

until late February 2004, they were not 

aware that the area should be designated 

nonattainment and, as noted above, by 

that time did not have time to 

adequately evaluate the appropriate 

boundaries for the nonattainment area. 

III. What Action Is EPA Taking To 

Defer the Effective Date of 

Nonattainment Designations for Clark 

County? 

Effective June 15, 2004, EPA will 

defer until September 13, 2004, the 

effective date of nonattainment 

designations for Clark County, Nevada 

by modifying 40 CFR 81.329. EPA is 

making this change without notice and 

comment in accordance with section 

107(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which 

exempts the promulgation of these 

designations from the notice and 

comment provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

We are making this deferral action 

effective on June 15, 2004, which is the 

date the nonattainment designation 

would otherwise become effective. 

Section 553(d) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act generally provides that 

rulemakings shall not be effective less 

than 30 days after publication unless the 

agency finds good cause for an earlier 

date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). EPA is invoking 

the good cause exception to make the 

effective date of today’s action June 15, 

2004. This notice explains why the 

current effective date of the 

nonattainment designation for Las Vegas 

should be deferred. Today’s action must 

take effect by June 15, 2004 in order to 

achieve that deferral and avoid 

unnecessary confusion. 

EPA does not intend to extend the 

deadline for state implementation plan 

submission for the Las Vegas 

nonattainment area. EPA will address 

this deadline in a subsequent action but 

believes it is reasonable to require 

submission according to the same 

schedule to which the area would be 

subject without today’s deferral of the 

effective date. Likewise, the time by 

which attainment occurs should not be 

affected by this action. Today’s deferral 

of the designation effective date should 

not delay the attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS because it is clear a core 

area will still be designated 

nonattainment and attainment is 

required as expeditiously as practicable. 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA is deferring the effective date 

to September 13, 2004, of the 

nonattainment designation for Clark 

County, Nevada, based on additional 

information submitted by the State. We 

are amending 40 CFR § 81.329 to reflect 

the modified effective date for the 

County. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to 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 

34078 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

none of the above factors applies. 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 

changes the effective date of a 

nonattainment designation for Clark 

County, Nevada that was promulgated 

on April 15, 2004. The present final rule 

does not establish any new information 

collection burden apart from that 

required by law. Burden means the 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 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of today’s final rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business that is a small 

industrial entity as defined in the U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. This rule defers 

the effective date of the nonattainment 

designation. The deferral of the effective 

date will not impose any requirements 

on small entities. After considering the 

economic impacts of today’s final rule 

on small entities, I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.

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 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, enabling 

officials of 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 governments on compliance with 

the 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 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 

38894; July 18, 1997), therefore, no 

UMRA analysis is needed. In this rule, 

EPA is deferring the effective date of 

nonattainment designation for Clark 

County, Nevada. The EPA believes that 

no new controls will be imposed as a 

result of this action. Thus, this Federal 

action will not impose mandates that 

will require expenditures of $100 

million or more in the aggregate in any 

1 year.

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, on 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 deferral of the effective 

date of the nonattainment designation 

for Clark County, Nevada. This final 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 34079

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 8-hour ozone 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,prior to 

designations action promulgated on 

April 15, 2004, EPA did outreach to 

Tribal representatives regarding the 

designations. 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 

designation and implementation process 

for the NAAQS, including the 8-hour 

ozone standard. These discussions 

informed EPA about key Tribal concerns 

regarding designations as the rule was 

under development. 

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 or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency 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 Agency. The final 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this rule present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

Nonetheless, we have evaluated the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children. 

The results of this risk assessment are 

contained the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule 

(62 FR 38855–38896, July 18, 1997; 

specifically, 62 FR 38854, 62 FR 38860 

and 62 FR 38865). 

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 

Economic Impact Assessment of the 

Proposed Rule Establishing the 

Implementation Framework for the 8-

Hour, 0.08 ppm Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard, 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

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 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 impractical. 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 

Agency 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. 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 on or before 

the effective date of this rule. 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). This 

rule will be effective June 15, 2004. 

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 the 

agency 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.’’ The rule designating 

areas for the 8-hour ozone standard was 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the 

meaning of section 307(b)(1) since it 

established designations for all areas of 

the United States for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Since this final action defers 

the effective date of one of the 

designations made in that nationwide 

rulemaking, any petitions for review 

must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit. At the 

core of the designations 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 

unclassifiable/attainment), EPA used a 

set of 11 factors that it applied 

consistently across the United States. 

For the same reasons, the Administrator 

also determined that the final 

designations are of nationwide scope 

and effect for 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 the designations 

rulemaking extend to numerous judicial 

circuits since the designations apply to 

all areas of the 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 

34080 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 117 / Friday, June 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. Thus, 

any petitions for review of this final 

action 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: June 14, 2004. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as 

follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—[Amended]

■ 2. In § 81.329, the table entitled 

‘‘Nevada–Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for ‘‘Clark 

County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.329 Nevada.

* * * * *

NEVADA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Las Vegas, NV: Clark County ................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 1. 

* * * * * * * 

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

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

2Effective date deferred until September 13, 2004. 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–13851 Filed 6–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2003–0083–1; FRL–7774–8] 

Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone; 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Early Action Compact 

Areas With Deferred Effective Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a deferral 

of the effective date, to September 30, 

2005, of the nonattainment designation 

for Hamilton and Meigs Counties, 

Tennessee, and Catoosa County, 

Georgia, based on additional 

information submitted by this area. The 

basis for this action is an updated 

modeling analysis completed by this 

area that demonstrates attainment of the 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 

December 31, 2007. In addition, in a 

letter dated May 27, 2004, from the 

Mayors of the City of Chattanooga and 

Hamilton County to EPA, the area has 

fully committed to adopt and 

implement additional local measures on 

a schedule consistent with requirements 

for Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 

These measures are also included in the 

updated modeling analysis.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on June 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

dockets for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0083 (Designations) and 

OAR–2003–0090 (Early Action 

Compacts). 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 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/

glo/designations and on the Tribal Web 

site at: http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal.

Materials relevant to EAC areas are on 

EPA’s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/

w1040218_eac_resources.pdf. In 

addition, the public may inspect the 

rule and technical support at the 

following locations: Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dick 

Schutt, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9033. 

Mr. Schutt can also be reached via 

electronic mail at schutt.dick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

The EPA is reinstating the EAC and 

deferring the effective date of the 

nonattainment designation for Hamilton 

County, TN; Meigs County, TN; and 

Catoosa County, GA, as a result of 

additional measures being taken by 

Chattanooga to improve air quality in 

the area. The additional measures being 

implemented in Hamilton County 

include a seasonal open burning ban 

and a vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program (I/M program). 

These measures have been included in 

the area’s modeling demonstration and 

result in modeled attainment by 

December 2007.

II. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

The EPA entered into EACs with 33 

communities on December 31, 2002, 

including the Chattanooga, TN–GA area. 

This area successfully completed the