20550 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1Letter from Catherine Witherspoon, Executive 

Officer, California Air Resources Board (‘‘CARB’’), 

to Mr. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX, dated January 9, 2004. In the letter, 

CARB transmits to EPA and endorses San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(’’District’’) Resolution No. 03–12–10 requesting the 

reclassification. 

2 In the very near future, EPA expects to issue 

new regulations to implement the 8-hour ozone 

standard. At that time we will be able to fully 

evaluate how the transition to the 8-hour standard 

will impact existing requirements to implement the 

1-hour ozone standard. 

3On April 5, 2004, EPA received an additional 

comment letter from ChevronTexaco dated March 

25, 2004 and postmarked April 1. Although that 

letter is outside the comment period, EPA has 

decided to include it in the docket for this rule. 

ChevronTexaco makes the same comment as the 

Western States Petroleum Association (‘‘WSPA’’) 

(discussed below) regarding additional time for the 

District to submit required SIP revisions and the 

extreme area plan. 

reference: R 336.1802 Applicability 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 802; R 336.1803 

Definitions for oxides of nitrogen budget 

trading program, Rule 803; R 336.1804 

Retired unit exemption from oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 

804; R 336.1805 Standard requirements 

of oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 805; R 336.1806 

Computation of time under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 

806; R 336.1807 Authorized account 

representative under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, Rule 807; R 

336.1808 Permit requirements under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 808; R 336.1809 

Compliance certification under oxides 

of nitrogen budget trading program, 

Rule 809; R 336.1810 Allowance 

allocations under oxides of nitrogen 

budget trading program, Rule 810; R 

336.1811 New source set-aside under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 811; R 336.1812 

Allowance tracking system and transfers 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 812; R 336.1813 

Monitoring and reporting requirements 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 813; R 336.1814 

Individual opt-ins under oxides of 

nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 

814; R 336.1815 Allowance banking 

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 815; R 336.1816 

Compliance supplement pool under 

oxides of nitrogen budget trading 

program, Rule 816; R 336.1817 Emission 

limitations and restrictions for Portland 

cement kilns, Rule 817. These rules 

became effective in the State on 

December 4, 2002. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 04–8451 Filed 4–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[CA 112–RECLAS, FRL–7648–8] 

Clean Air Act Reclassification, San 

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area; 

California; Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

grant a request by the State of California 

to voluntarily reclassify under the Clean 

Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) the San 

Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment 

Area (‘‘San Joaquin Valley Air Basin’’ or 

‘‘SJVAB’’) from a severe to an extreme 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area. 

We are also taking final action to 

require the State to submit by November 

15, 2004 an extreme area ozone plan for 

the areas within the SJVAB under the 

State’s jurisdiction that provides for the 

attainment of the ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(‘‘NAAQS’’) as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than November 

15, 2010. This plan must meet the 

specific provisions of CAA section 

182(e). The State must also submit 

within 12 months of the effective date 

of this rule, revised Title V and New 

Source Review rules that reflect the 

extreme area statutory requirements. 

Once effective, this reclassification of 

the SJVAB terminates the federal offset 

sanction that was imposed on March 18, 

2004 and also terminates the highway 

sanction and federal implementation 

plan clocks. The sanction and FIP 

clocks were started under CAA section 

179(a) upon EPA’s 2002 finding that the 

State failed to submit the statutorily 

required severe area attainment 

demonstration for the area. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

May 17, 2004. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. CA 112–RECLAS. Docket materials 

are available in hard copy at EPA’s 

Region IX office during normal business 

hours by appointment. The address is 

U.S. EPA Region IX—Air Division, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. This Regional Office is 

open from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Wampler, EPA Region IX, Air 

Division (AIR–3), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA, 94105; telephone: 

(415) 972–3975; fax: (415) 947–3579; email: wampler.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 23, 2004 (69 FR 8126), 

EPA proposed to grant a request by the 

State of California to voluntarily 

reclassify under Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’) 

section 181(b)(3), the San Joaquin Valley 

Ozone Nonattainment Area (‘‘San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin’’ or ‘‘SJVAB’’) 

from a severe to an extreme 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard.1, 2 In addition, we proposed 

that the State submit, by no later than 

October 1, 2004, an extreme area plan 

addressing the requirements of CAA 

section 182(e) and that the State submit 

revised New Source Review rules and 

Title V program revisions for the areas 

within the District’s jurisdiction within 

12 months from the effective date of the 

final reclassification. 

There are several Indian reservations 

located within the SJVAB. In our 

proposed action, we noted that states 

typically have no jurisdiction under the 

CAA in Indian country and that 

California has not been approved by 

EPA to administer any CAA programs in 

Indian country. We also stated that, as 

a matter of EPA’s federal 

implementation of relevant provisions 

of the CAA over Indian country within 

the SJVAB, we believe these areas of 

Indian country should be reclassified to 

extreme. We contacted all seven tribes 

with reservations located within the 

SJVAB to inform them that we intend to 

include their reservations in the 

reclassification and to provide the tribes 

the opportunity for consultation. None 

of the seven tribes we contacted 

requested consultation or submitted 

comments on our proposed action. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received three comment 

letters.3 Our response immediately 

follows our summary of each comment 

letter. 

Comment #1: On behalf of the 

Association of Irritated Residents 

(‘‘AIR’’), The Center on Race Poverty and 

The Environment requested that EPA 

approve the State’s reclassification 

request with a contingency that would 

allow us to rescind the extreme 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 20551 

4On March 22, 2004 the Kern County Superior 

Court denied AIR’s Petition for Writ of Mandate and 

Complaint for Declaratory Relief in Association of 

Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified 

APCD, Case No. S–1500–CV 252128 KCT. 

5The District also stated that they could meet our 

proposed schedule that they submit, through CARB, 

necessary revisions to their Title V and NSR rules 

within 12 months from the effective date of the final 

rule. 

6The CAA specifically excludes certain severe 

area requirements from the extreme area 

requirements, e.g., section 182(c)(6),(7) and (8). 

classification and revert the SJVAB to a 

severe nonattainment area if the 

California State Court of Appeal 

invalidates the District Board resolution 

requesting the reclassification (#03–12–

10, December 18, 2003), or otherwise 

holds that the District violated State 

procedural law when it adopted the 

resolution. AIR added that the 

contingency should also restart any 

pending sanctions and FIP clocks and 

re-apply sanctions already in place. To 

justify their request, AIR cited their 

anticipated appeal of the State Superior 

Court decision.4

EPA Response to Comment #1: EPA 

does not believe it is necessary to attach 

the contingency requested by AIR to the 

final reclassification of the SJVAB to 

extreme. In this instance, EPA is 

granting the January 9, 2004 request of 

the State under CAA section 181(b)(3) 

for a voluntary reclassification. In the 

event that the State Court of Appeal 

overturns the March 22, 2004 Kern 

County Superior Court’s decision and 

invalidates the District Board’s 

December 2003 resolution, State law 

would determine what effect, if any, 

such a result would have on the State’s 

reclassification request. EPA, in 

consultation with CARB, will evaluate 

the impact of any State appellate 

decision on the reclassification and the 

pre-existing sanctions clocks and take 

any appropriate action, including 

rescission. Moreover, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, any 

interested person can petition EPA for 

the repeal of any rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e). 

Comment #2: The District asked that 

the submittal date for the 1-hour 

extreme area ozone plan be delayed 45 

days from the October 1, 2004 date we 

proposed to a new date of November 15, 

2004.5

The District cited two reasons for 

needing additional time to submit the 

extreme area plan. First, the District 

stated that continued model 

performance concerns for Central 

California Ozone Study (‘‘CCOS’’) ozone 

episodes have delayed the availability of 

reliable model runs predicting year 2010 

ozone levels for the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basin. Second, the District said they 

needed additional time to conduct their 

environmental review of the plan under 

the California Environmental Quality 

Act (‘‘CEQA’’). While the District 

acknowledged uncertainty about the 

extent of the CEQA review, they stated 

that the timing of the CEQA approval 

must be dovetailed with the plan 

adoption which would most likely 

occur in August or September 2004, 

with CARB approval in October 2004. 

EPA Response to Comment #2: EPA 

understands from the District’s 

comment letter that the concerns 

regarding the modeling runs were 

resolved during the week of March 22, 

2004 and that, as a result, the requested 

November 15, 2004 submittal deadline 

can be met. We also acknowledge the 

desirability for the CEQA review and 

the plan adoption to be coordinated. 

Therefore, we believe that the additional 

45 days sought by the District for 

submittal of the extreme area plan to 

EPA is warranted. 

Comment #3: WSPA supported the 

reclassification request and our 

determination that the current sanction 

and FIP clocks, based on requirements 

for severe ozone nonattainment areas, 

will stop upon the effective date of the 

reclassification. WSPA, however, 

questioned our proposed schedules for 

submission of the extreme area ozone 

plan and revised NSR and Title V rules 

and stated that the schedules did not 

provide adequate time for preparation 

and adoption of the plan and amended 

rules. Instead of the schedules we 

proposed, WSPA requested that EPA 

establish one deadline for all required 

submittals and that the deadline be 18 

months from the effective date of the 

final rule. 

WSPA stated more time is necessary 

because EPA’s proposed deadline does 

not allow sufficient time for the District 

to rely on the best possible information 

in completing the plan development 

and adoption process. WSPA cited 

existing performance problems 

associated with ozone episodes assessed 

in the CCOS program and concerns 

regarding the emissions inventory. 

WSPA also requested that the same 

18-month submittal date for the plan be 

established for the necessary NSR and 

Title V rule revisions. WSPA claimed 

that it was appropriate to set the 

deadline 18 months from the effective 

date of the rule because doing so would: 

(1) Be consistent with the suggested 

timeline for the extreme area plan 

submittal; and (2) help assure the 

District is not saddled with 

unnecessarily stringent federal NSR and 

Title V applicability provisions if the 

extreme area requirements would not 

apply in the District under EPA’s final 

rule for transition to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA Response to Comment #3: EPA 

appreciates WSPA’s support of the 

reclassification and we acknowledge 

their request that we require the extreme 

area plan and the NSR and Title V 

revisions be submitted 18 months from 

the effective date of the rule. As 

discussed below, however, we do not 

believe that the additional time is 

warranted. 

First, regarding the plan submittal, 

WSPA’s request for the full 18 months 

is not warranted in this case because the 

District has been working on the 

extreme area plan since 2002 and has 

indicated that they can meet the 

November 15, 2004 deadline. EPA 

believes that development of the plan 

should not be slowed or delayed any 

further than absolutely necessary and 

should remain a priority for all involved 

agencies. Thus, although we are not 

granting the full 18 months as requested 

by WSPA, we do believe, based on the 

District’s comments above, that the 45 

additional days requested by the District 

to submit the attainment demonstration 

are warranted. 

In response to WSPA’s request to 

extend the due date for the NSR and 

Title V rule revisions, we do not believe 

that an additional 6 months is 

necessary. Again, we are not granting 

WSPA’s request because the District has 

indicated that they can meet a deadline 

of 12 months from the effective date of 

the reclassification. 

Regarding WSPA’s comment that 

additional data analysis is needed to 

confirm possible performance problems 

associated with the CCOS program, we 

recognize that CCOS data may not have 

advanced at the pace we had expected, 

but EPA does not believe this should 

prevent the State and District from 

moving forward with the attainment 

demonstration for the SJVAB. 

III. Consequences of Reclassification 

A. Extreme Area Plan Requirements 

Under CAA section 182(e), extreme 

area plans are required to meet all the 

requirements for severe area plans 6 plus 

the requirements for extreme areas, 

including, but not limited to: (1) A 10 

ton per year major source definition; (2) 

additional reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) rules for sources 

subject to the new lower major source 

cutoff; (3) a new source review offset 

requirement of at least 1.5 to 1; (4) a rate 

of progress demonstration of emission 

reductions of ozone precursors of at 

least 3 percent per year from 2005 until 

20552 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

7The CAA does not allow the state to use the 

provision at CAA section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) that would 

allow the state to demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the Administrator that less than 3 percent reduction 

per year is approvable if the plan reflecting such 

lesser amount includes all measures that can 

feasibly be implemented in the area. 

the attainment date;7 (5) clean fuels for 

boilers as required for at CAA section 

182(e)(3); and contingency measures. 

The plan must address the general 

nonattainment plan requirements in 

CAA section 172(c). The extreme area 

plan for the SJVAB must also contain 

adopted regulations and may also 

contain enforceable commitments to the 

extent consistent with Agency guidance, 

sufficient to make the required rate of 

progress and to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than November 15, 2010. 

The new attainment demonstration 

should be based on the best information 

available. 

B. NSR and Title V Program Revisions 

In addition to the required plan 

revisions discussed above, the District 

must revise its NSR rule to reflect the 

extreme area definitions for major new 

sources and major modifications and to 

increase the offset ratio for these sources 

from the ratio for severe areas in CAA 

section 182(d)(2) to 1.5 to 1. CAA 

section 182(e)(1) and (2). The District 

must also make any changes in its Title 

V operating permits program necessary 

to reflect the change in the threshold 

from 25 tpy for severe areas to 10 tpy 

for extreme areas. 

C. Sanctions and FIP 

For the reasons stated in our proposed 

rule, upon the effective date of today’s 

final action, the federal offset sanction 

that was imposed on March 18, 2004 

pursuant to CAA section 179(a) will be 

terminated. In addition, our action 

terminates the highway sanction and 

FIP clocks. These sanction and FIP 

clocks were started as a result of the 

Agency’s October 2, 2002 finding that 

the State failed to submit the severe area 

attainment demonstration. 

IV. EPA Action 

After fully considering all comments 

received on the proposed rule, EPA is 

taking final action to grant the State of 

California’s request to voluntarily 

reclassify the SJVAB from a severe to an 

extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. We are also taking final action to 

require the State to submit by November 

15, 2004, an extreme area ozone plan for 

the areas within the SJVAB under the 

State’s jurisdiction that provides for the 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than November 15, 2010. This plan 

must meet, among other general 

provisions of the CAA, the specific 

provisions of section 182(e), portions of 

which are discussed above. The State 

must also submit by May 16, 2005, 

revised Title V and New Source Review 

rules that reflect the extreme area 

requirements. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. EPA 

has determined that the voluntary 

reclassification would not result in any 

of the effects identified in Executive 

Order 12866 section 3(f). Voluntary 

reclassifications under section 181(b)(3) 

of the CAA are based solely upon 

requests by the State and EPA is 

required under the CAA to grant them. 

These actions do not, in and of 

themselves, impose any new 

requirements on any sectors of the 

economy. In addition, because the 

statutory requirements are clearly 

defined with respect to the differently 

classified areas, and because those 

requirements are automatically triggered 

by classifications, reclassification 

cannot be said to impose a materially 

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities. 

For the aforementioned reasons, this 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 32111, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). These actions 

do not contain any unfunded mandate 

or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4) for the following 

reasons: EPA is required to grant 

requests by states for voluntary 

reclassifications and such 

reclassifications in and of themselves do 

not impose any federal 

intergovernmental mandate. Several 

Indian tribes have reservations located 

within the boundaries of the SJVAB. 

EPA is responsible for the 

implementation of federal Clean Air Act 

programs in Indian country, including 

reclassifications. At the time of our 

proposed action, EPA notified all the 

affected tribal officials, and provided 

each the opportunity for consultation on 

a government-to-government basis, as 

provided for by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). None 

of the tribes we contacted requested 

consultation or submitted comments on 

our proposed action. 

Because EPA is required to grant 

requests by states for voluntary 

reclassifications and such 

reclassifications in and of themselves do 

not impose any federal 

intergovernmental mandate, this rule 

also does not have Federalism 

implications as it does 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). For these same 

reasons, this rule also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). These actions are also 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they 

are not economically significant. 

As discussed above, a voluntary 

reclassification under section 181(b)(3) 

of the CAA is based solely on the 

request of a state and EPA is required 

to grant such a request. In this context, 

it would thus be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, when it grants 

a state’s request for a voluntary 

reclassification to use voluntary 

consensus standards. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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. 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 20553 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 15, 2004. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration 

by the Administrator of this final rule 

does not affect the finality of this rule 

for the purposes of judicial review nor 

does it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 8, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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. 

■ 2. In § 81.305 the ‘‘California-Ozone 

(1-Hour Standard)’’ table is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley Area:’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE [1-HOUR STANDARD] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

San Joaquin Valley Area: 

Fresno County ............................................................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Kern County (part).

That portion of Kern County that lies west and north of a 

line described below: 

11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and 

running north and east along the northwest boundary of 

the Rancho La Pliebre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range line common to Range 16 West 

and Range 17 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; 

then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the 

boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 11 North, Range 17 

West; then west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El 

Tejon Land Grant boundary; then northwest along the 

Rancho El Tejon line to the southeast corner of Section 

34, Township 32 South, Range 30 East, Mount Diablo 

Base and Meridian; then north to the northwest corner 

of Section 35, Township 31 South, Range 30 East; 

then northeast along the boundary of the Rancho El 

Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner of Section 

18, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then east to 

the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 31 South, 

Range 31 East; then north along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 32 East; then east to 

the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 28 

South, Range 32 East; then north along the range line 

common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East to the 

northwest corner of Section 6, Township 28 South, 

Range 32 East, then west to the southeast corner of 

Section 36, Township 27 South, Range 31 East, then 

north along the range line common to Range 31 East 

and Range 32 East to the Kern-Tulare County boundary: 

Kings County ............................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Madera County ............................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Merced County ............................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

San Joaquin County .................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Stanislaus County ........................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

Tulare County .............................................................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment ........ 05/17/04 Extreme 

* * * * * * * 

20554 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 04–8677 Filed 4–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–916; MB Docket No. 02–350; RM–

10600] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Sheffield, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Katherine Pyeatt, allots 

Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, as 

the community’s first local FM service. 

Channel 224C2 can be allotted to 

Sheffield, Texas, in compliance with the 

Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 15.7 km (9.8 miles) south 

of Sheffield. The coordinates for 

Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, are 

30–33–15 North Latitude and 101–52–

09 West Longitude. The Mexican 

government has concurred in this 

allotment. A filing window for Channel 

224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, will not be 

opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 

opening this allotment for auction will 

be addressed by the Commission in a 

subsequent Order. 

DATES: Effective May 20, 2004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 02–350, 

adopted April 2, 2004, and released 

April 5, 2004. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text of this decision may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Qualex International, Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, (202) 863–2893, 

facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via e-mail 

qualexint@aol.com. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

■ Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Texas, is amended by 

adding Sheffield, Channel 224C2. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 04–8682 Filed 4–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–917; MM Docket No. 01–189; RM–

10204] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Annona 

and Mangum, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Annona Broadcasting 

Company, allots Channel 263A at 

Annona, Texas, as the community’s first 

local FM service. This allotment at 

Annona, Texas, was adopted in lieu of 

the original proposal of Katherine 

Pyeatt, requesting the allotment of 

Channel 263A at Winnsboro, Texas. 

Channel 263A can be allotted to 

Annona, Texas, in compliance with the 

Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 13.0 km (8.1 miles) west of 

Annona. The coordinates for Channel 

263A at Annona, Texas, are 33–34–53 

North Latitude and 95–03–19 West 

Longitude. A filing window for Channel 

263A at Annona, Texas, will not be 

opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 

opening this allotment for auction will 

be addressed by the Commission in a 

subsequent Order. 

DATES: Effective May 20, 2004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MM Docket No. 01–189, 

adopted April 2, 2004, and released 

April 5, 2004. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text of this decision may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Qualex International, Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, (202) 863–2893, 

facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via e-mail 

qualexint@aol.com. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

■ Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Texas, is amended by 

adding Annona, Channel 263A. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 04–8683 Filed 4–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–915; MM Docket No. 01–182; RM–

10202] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Clarksville, TX, and Haworth, OK 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Haworth Broadcasting 

Company, allots Channel 294A at 

Haworth, Oklahoma, as the 

community’s first local FM service. This 

allotment at Haworth, Oklahoma, was 

adopted in lieu of the original proposal 

of Katherine Pyeatt, requesting the 

allotment of Channel 294A at 

Clarksville, Texas. Channel 294A can be 

allotted to Haworth, Oklahoma, in 

compliance with the Commission’s 

minimum distance separation 

requirements with a site restriction of 

10.1 km (6.3 miles) south of Haworth. 

The coordinates for Channel 294A at 

Haworth, Oklahoma, are 33–45–33 

North Latitude and 94–41–06 West 

Longitude. A filing window for Channel