55956 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

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

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

system practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T01–099 to 

read as follows:

§ 165.T01–099 Safety Zone; Wiscasset, 

Maine, Demolition of Maine Yankee former 

containment building. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters within 

1000-feet around the former Maine 

Yankee containment building from a 

point located at Latitude 43°57′00′′ N, 

Longitude 069°41′42′′ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective date. This rule is effective 

from 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 3, 

2004 to 11:59 p.m. e.d.t. on September 

30, 2004. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations contained in 

§ 165.23 of this part, entry into or 

movement within this zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Portland, 

Maine or his designated representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP, or the designated on-scene U.S. 

Coast Guard representative. Designated 

U.S. Coast Guard representatives 

include commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the Coast Guard on 

board Coast Guard, Coast Guard 

Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal 

law enforcement vessels. Emergency 

response vessels are authorized to move 

within the zone, but must abide by 

restrictions imposed by the COTP or his 

designated representative. Upon being 

hailed by U.S. Coast Guard personnel or 

a U.S. Coast Guard Vessel, via siren, 

radio, flashing light, or other means, 

those hailed shall proceed as directed. 

(3) Entry or movement within this 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.

Dated: September 2, 2004. 

Gregory D. Case, 

Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Acting Captain of the Port, Portland, Maine.

[FR Doc. 04–20927 Filed 9–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2003–0083; FRL–7815–3] 

Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Las Vegas, NV 

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the 

boundaries for the portion of Clark 

County, Nevada that is designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

and designates the remaining portions 

of Clark County, including portions of 

the Moapa River Indian Reservation and 

the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation, as 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. In a final rule published April 

30, 2004, EPA had previously 

announced that all of Clark County 

would be designated nonattainment for 

the standard. EPA subsequently 

deferred the effective date of that 

designation to provide the State, 

affected Tribes, and EPA time to 

determine whether an adjustment to the 

boundaries of the Las Vegas 

nonattainment area was appropriate. 

Based on additional analyses submitted 

by the State and the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes, we conclude that the boundary 

of the Las Vegas nonattainment area 

should be adjusted. Through this notice 

we are revising the designations for 

Clark County to reflect these 

adjustments. The revised designation 

defines a smaller nonattainment area 

around the City of Las Vegas and 

designates the remainder of Clark 

County with the rest of the State as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective on September 13, 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55957

1This letter supplements an earlier letter dated 

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

Administrator Leavitt.

2For a detailed discussion on this history, see our 

June 18, 2004 deferral notice at 69 FR 34076.

3Although we did not receive submittals from the 

other Tribes in Clark County, we consulted with 

them by phone to determine the appropriate 

designation of their lands.

4Memorandum from John S. Seitz, ‘‘Boundary 

Guidance on Air Quality Designations for the 8-

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (March 28, 2002).

5Memorandum from John S. Seitz, ‘‘Guidance on 

8-Hour Ozone Designations for Indian Tribes’’ (July 

18, 2000).

6To determine whether an area is attaining the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS, EPA considers the most recent 

three consecutive years of data in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

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 IX, Air Division, 

Planning Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Kelly, Planning Office, Air Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. The 

telephone number is (415) 947–4151. 

Mr. Kelly can also be reached via 

electronic mail at kelly.johnj@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? 

EPA is announcing and promulgating 

revised designations for areas within 

Clark County, Nevada with respect to 

attainment or nonattainment of the 8-

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This action 

modifies the designation for Clark 

County announced in our final 8-hour 

ozone designations rule published April 

30, 2004. 69 FR 23858. In that final rule 

we designated all of Clark County as 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and provided the designation 

would be effective June 15, 2004. See 69 

FR at 23919–20 (revising 40 CFR 

81.329). We subsequently deferred the 

effective date for the Clark County 

designation until September 13, 2004 to 

allow further consideration of the 

appropriate nonattainment boundary. 69 

FR 34076 (June 18, 2004). With today’s 

action, we are designating a portion of 

Clark County as nonattainment for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

remainder of the County with the rest of 

the State as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’

The effective date of this designation is 

September 13, 2004.

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 NAAQS. 69 FR 23875 (April 

30, 2004). In that action we designated 

Clark County as nonattainment and 

provided that this designation would 

become effective on June 15, 2004. 

Following that notice, the State 

submitted additional information 

explaining that the boundaries of the 

area to be designated nonattainment 

should be reconsidered because of the 

unique circumstances that prevented 

the State from being able to evaluate the 

appropriate boundaries and submit an 

informed recommendation to EPA prior 

to the April 15, 2004 final 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).1 In the June 9, 2004 letter the 

State explained 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.

Based on the unusual history of the 

Clark County designation 2 and the 

subsequent information provided by the 

State, we concluded that the relevant 

factors for defining a nonattainment area 

might support a different boundary 

recommendation than the one originally 

submitted by the State and that a 

deferral of the effective date for the 

designation was reasonable to allow the 

State, Tribes, and EPA time to 

determine whether such an adjustment 

was reasonable. 69 FR at 34076.

Following EPA’s decision to defer the 

effective date, EPA has worked closely 

with the State, County and Tribes to 

collect additional information and 

analyze the appropriate boundaries for 

the nonattainment area surrounding Las 

Vegas. We have received boundary 

recommendations with detailed 

information and analysis from the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP or State) and from the 

Moapa Band of Paiutes (Moapa or 

Tribe).3 Our analysis of these submittals 

is described in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for today’s action and 

is summarized below. All of these 

submittals along with our TSD are 

available in the docket.

III. What Are the Statutory 

Requirements for Designating Areas 

and What Is EPA’s Policy and Guidance 

for Determining Nonattainment 

Boundaries for the 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS? 

This section describes the statutory 

definition of nonattainment and EPA’s 

guidance for determining air quality 

attainment and nonattainment areas for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In March 

2000 4 and July 2000 5 we issued 

guidance on how to determine the 

boundaries for nonattainment areas. In 

that guidance, we rely on the CAA 

definition of a nonattainment area in 

section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) as an area that is 

violating an ambient standard or is 

contributing to a nearby area that is 

violating the standard. If an area meets 

this definition, EPA is obligated to 

designate the area as nonattainment.

In making designations and 

classifications, we use the most recent 

three years of monitoring data (i.e., 

2001–2003), although other relevant 

years of data may be used in certain 

circumstances.6 We treat data recorded 

by an ozone air quality monitor as 

representative of the air quality 

throughout the area in which the 

monitor is located and generally use the 

county as the basic jurisdictional unit in 

determining the extent of the area 

represented by the monitoring data. As 

a result, we typically designate the 

entire county and any nearby 

contributing area as nonattainment if an 

ozone monitor was measuring a 

violation of the standard based on the 

2001–2003 data.

For violating monitors located in a 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or 

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (CMSA), however, we typically 

designate the entire MSA or CMSA as 

nonattainment. Section 107(d)(4) of the 

Clean Air Act established the MSA or 

55958 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

7These same presumptions generally apply to the 

designation of Indian country. Thus, if the Indian 

country has a violating monitor or even if there is 

no air quality monitor but the area is located within 

an MSA or CMSA with a violating monitor, it will 

be presumed to be nonattainment. See

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, ‘‘Guidance on 8-

Hour Ozone Designations for Indian Tribes’’ (July 

18, 2000).

8For Indian country, a Tribe may, but is not 

required to, submit a recommendation on the 

designation boundaries. In cases where Tribes do 

not make designation recommendations, EPA, in 

consultation with the Tribes, will promulgate the 

designation it determines is appropriate. ‘‘It is 

Agency policy that EPA ‘* * * in keeping with the 

Federal trust responsibility, will assure that tribal 

concerns and interests are considered whenever 

EPA’s action and/or decisions may affect 

reservation environments.’ (EPA 1984 Indian 

Policy).’’ Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

‘‘Guidance on 8-Hour Ozone Designations for 

Indian Tribes’’ (July 18, 2000).

9See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

‘‘Boundary Guidance on Air Quality Designations 

for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (March 28, 2002).

10As the State subsequently claimed, had NDEP 

and Clark County discovered earlier that the County 

should be designated nonattainment, it would have 

further analyzed the appropriate boundaries for the 

nonattainment are within the 8000-square mile 

County. Given the late discovery, however, the 

State and county could not provide the necessary 

analysis and defaulted to the County boundaries. 

See 69 FR 34076 (June 18, 2004) (Deferring effective 

date to allow for additional anlaysis of appropriate 

boundary).

CMSA as the presumptive boundary for 

nonattainment areas when we 

promulgated our designation actions in 

1991 for the 1-hour ozone standard. In 

our guidance on determining 

nonattainment area boundaries for the 

8-hour ozone standard, we advised 

States that if a violating monitor is 

located in an MSA or CMSA (as defined 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in 1999), the larger of the 

1-hour ozone nonattainment area or the 

MSA or CMSA should be considered in 

determining the boundary of a 

nonattainment area.7 The MSA or 

CMSA defined by OMB generally shares 

economic, transportation, population, 

and other linkages that are similar to air 

quality related factors that produce 

ozone pollution. EPA concluded that 

using the MSA or CMSA as the 

presumptive boundary ‘‘best ensure[s] 

public health protection from the 

adverse effects of ozone pollution 

caused by population density, traffic 

and commuting patterns, commercial 

development, and area growth.’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

‘‘Boundary Guidance on Air Quality 

Designations for the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (March 28, 2002). This 

boundary, however, is only 

presumptive; a State may propose area 

boundaries smaller or larger than the 

presumptive area, and EPA will 

consider alternative boundary 

recommendations on a case-by-case 

basis to assesswhether the 

recommendation is consistent with 

section 107(d)(1) of the Act. 8 Id.

Our guidance identifies the factors to 

be considered in making and assessing 

a recommendation to designate an area 

other than the presumptive area. The 

factors can be used to justify including 

additional counties, excluding counties 

within the presumptive area, or, as is 

the case for the Las Vegas area, defining 

an area that is less than the full county. 

The factors were compiled based on our 

experience in designating areas for the 

ozone standard in March 1978 and 

November 1991 and by looking to the 

CAA, section 107(d)(4), which states 

that the Administrator and the Governor 

shall consider factors such as 

population density, traffic congestion, 

commercial development, industrial 

development, meteorological 

conditions, and pollution transport. 

State and local agencies also had 

extensive input into compiling the 

factors. 

The factors are:

(1) Emissions and air quality in 

adjacent areas (including adjacent MSAs 

and CMSAs), 

(2) Population density and degree of 

urbanization including commercial 

development (significant difference 

from surrounding areas), 

(3) Monitoring data representing 

ozone concentrations in local areas and 

larger areas (urban or regional scale), 

(4) Location of emission sources 

(emission sources and nearby receptors 

should generally be included in the 

same nonattainment area), 

(5) Traffic and commuting patterns, 

(6) Expected growth (including extent, 

pattern, and rate of growth), 

(7) Meteorology (weather/transport 

patterns), 

(8) Geography/topography (mountain 

ranges or other air basin boundaries), 

(9) Jurisdictional boundaries (e.g.,

counties, air districts, existing 1-hour 

nonattainment areas, Reservations, etc.), 

(10) Level of control of emission 

sources, and 

(11) Regional emissions reductions 

(e.g., NOX State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Call or other enforceable regional 

strategies).9

IV. What Are the Nonattainment 

Boundaries Within Clark County and 

How Do These Comport With EPA 

Policy and Guidance? 

A. Initial Designation of Clark County 

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 by 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 complete monitoring 

data for 2001. This overlooked data, in 

combination with the new 2003 data, 

resulted in a 2001–2003 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 

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 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 NDEP’s 

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.10 Id. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55959

11A hydrographic area is a natural or manmade 

stream drainage area or basin. These geographic 

areas are delineated by the Nevada Division of 

Water Resources and have long been used by the 

State and EPA for defining and designating air 

basins within the State. See 67 FR 12474 (March 19, 

2002). A map of these areas is included in the 

State’s August 2, 2004 submittal, which can be 

found in the docket.

12The TSD contains a map showing these 

hydrographic areas and the boundary of the 

nonattainment area, as well as our review of the 

State’s analysis.

13As described above, portions of the Moapa 

River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mojave 

Indian Reservation are located within the 

hydrographic basins the State recommended EPA 

use to define the nonattainment area. The State’s 

August 2, 2004 submittal, however, expressly 

‘‘excludes the Las Vegas Paiute Tribal Community, 

and the Moapa Band of the Paiute Tribal Land’’

from the recommended nonattainment area. The 

State’s recommendation is silent with respect to the 

Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. EPA interprets the 

State’s submittal to leave the designation 

recommendations and decisions for all Tribal lands 

within the County to EPA and the respective Tribes. 

As such, we have independently assessed the 

proper designations for these areas and presume 

that it is fair to say that we ‘‘agree’’ with the 

recommendation of the State independent of the 

designations for the Tribal areas.

14For a more detailed discussion of the 11 factors 

supporting exclusion of these areas, see the TSD for 

today’s action.

EPA’s April 30, 2004 final rule 

announcing the 8-hour ozone 

designations for the country designated 

all of Clark County as nonattainment 

and the rest of State as ‘‘unclassifiable/

attainment.’’ 69 FR 23858, 23919–20 

(April 30, 2004).

B. Revised Boundary Recommendation 

for the Las Vegas Nonattainment Area 

On August 2, 2004, the State 

submitted a revised recommendation for 

the boundary of the nonattainment area 

surrounding Las Vegas. Letter from Leo 

Drozdoff, Acting Administrator, NDEP, 

to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator. U.S. EPA, Region IX. 

Based on an analysis of the 11 factors 

outlined in EPA’s guidance, the State 

recommended that the following 

hydrographic areas 11 within Clark 

County be designated nonattainment: 

Ivanpah Valley (hydrographic areas 

164A, 164B, 165 and 166), Eldorado 

Valley (hydrographic area 167), Las 

Vegas Valley (hydrographic area 212), 

Colorado River Valley (hydrographic 

area 213), Paiute Valley (hydrographic 

area 214), Apex Valley (hydrographic 

areas 216 and 217), and a portion of 

Moapa Valley (hydrographic area 

218).12 The State recommended that the 

remainder of the County be designated 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ because 

these areas:

• Are sparsely populated, containing 

less than two percent of the County 

population; 

• Were not found to impact the 

recommended nonattainment area; 

• Contain insignificant point and 

mobile sources of emissions; 

• Are separated geographically and 

topographically from the recommended 

nonattainment area; and 

• Are expected to have low regional 

ozone levels based on monitoring data. 

The areas recommended as part of the 

nonattainment area contain all of the 

monitors reading elevated ozone 

concentrations, all of the major 

transportation corridors, nearly all of 

the major sources of ozone precursors in 

the County, and the vast majority of the 

County’s population. The State 

considered likely transport of emissions 

in and out of the Las Vegas Valley and 

recommended including all areas with 

sources that may contribute to 

violations of the 8-hour standard in Las 

Vegas as well as surrounding areas that 

may be impacted by emissions from 

sources in and around Las Vegas. 

C. Designation Recommendation for the 

Moapa River Reservation 

We also received recommendations 

from the Moapa Band of Paiutes 

regarding designation of the Moapa 

River Indian Reservation located within 

Clark County, northeast of Las Vegas. 

Letter from Philbert Swain, Chairman, 

to John Kelly, U.S. EPA, Region IX (July 

30, 2004); Letter from Thomas R. Wood, 

Stoel Rives, to Paul Cort, U.S. EPA, 

Region IX (Aug. 19, 2004) (transmitting 

supplement to the July 30, 2004 

analysis). The Reservation overlaps with 

the hydrographic areas recommended as 

nonattainment by the State (Apex and 

Moapa Valleys), but the Tribe 

recommended designating the 

Reservation as attainment because: 

• Emissions at the Reservation do not 

significantly impact local air quality;

• Emissions do not contribute to 

nonattainment in the Las Vegas Valley; 

and 

• The area lacks any economic 

integration with Las Vegas. 

D. Designation of Other Reservations 

Within Clark County 

Two other reservations are within the 

area recommended by the State as the 

nonattainment area. Specifically, in 

addition to the Moapa River Indian 

Reservation of the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes described above, the area 

includes the reservation lands of the Las 

Vegas Paiute and a small portion of the 

Fort Mojave Indian Reservation of the 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. We did not 

receive recommendations from the Las 

Vegas Paiute or the Fort Mojave Tribes, 

so we have prepared an independent 

assessment in accordance with our 

guidance and consulted with the Tribes 

to promulgate designations for these 

Reservations. 

E. Summary of Final Designations 

EPA agrees with the recommendation 

of the State to narrow the nonattainment 

designation for the Las Vegas area to the 

portion of Clark County defined by 

hydrographic areas 164A, 164B, 165, 

166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217 and 

218.13 We therefore will designate the 

remainder of the County, as we have 

designated the rest of the State, as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS.

The State has taken a broad and 

conservative approach in defining the 

portions of the 8,000-square mile 

County that cause of contribute to 

violations of the standard in the Las 

Vegas Valley. These areas include all 

portions of the County having any 

elevated concentrations of ozone and 

nearly every major source in the County. 

The areas recommended as part of the 

nonattainment area include 98 percent 

of the population and all of the 

urbanized and projected growth areas 

within the County. Finally, the area 

recommended for nonattainment 

includes the major traffic and 

commuting corridors within the County. 

We also agree that the remainder of 

the County is reasonably excluded from 

the nonattainment area. It is primarily 

public land, with few sources, and no 

urbanization or likelihood of growth. 

Air quality in these surrounding areas is 

not impaired with respect to the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and there is no 

likelihood of contribution to the ozone 

problem in the Las Vegas area due to the 

lack of emission sources, geographical 

barriers and prevailing weather 

patterns.14

The area recommended by the State 

for nonattainment overlaps with the 

reservation land of three Tribes: the 

Moapa Band of Paiutes, located in 

Moapa Valley northeast of Las Vegas; 

the Las Vegas Band of Paiutes, located 

within the Las Vegas Valley; and the 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, located at the 

southern tip of the County near the 

Arizona and California state lines. As 

noted above, we received a designation 

recommendation from the Moapa Band 

of Paiutes that argued for designating 

the Reservation in Moapa Valley as 

attainment. We consulted with the other 

Tribes but did not receive formal 

recommendations. 

In accordance with our trust 

responsibilities for these Tribes, we 

independently evaluated whether these 

areas should be included or excluded 

55960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

15A fuller analysis of the 11 factors for excluding 

these areas is provided in the TSD for this action.

from the nonattainment area within 

Clark County. We concluded that the 

Las Vegas Paiute land, given its location 

within the Las Vegas Valley, its 

meteorologic and economic integration 

with Las Vegas, and the impact on air 

quality within the Reservation due to 

emissions from Las Vegas, should be 

included in the Las Vegas 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The other Tribal 

areas, however, are reasonably 

excluded.15

The Moapa Band of Paiutes provided 

significant information demonstrating 

that: (1) The Reservation is sufficiently 

removed from the sources of emissions 

in and around Las Vegas such that air 

quality in the Reservation has not been 

adversely impacted, (2) the area is not 

economically integrated with the growth 

of the Las Vegas area, and (3) emissions 

from sources within the tribal area do 

not contribute to air quality problems in 

or around Las Vegas due to prevailing 

wind patterns. For these reasons, we 

agree the Moapa River Indian 

Reservation should be excluded from 

the Las Vegas 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

The Fort Mojave Reservation is also 

reasonably excluded from the Las Vegas 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The 

Reservation is located approximately 80 

miles from the Las Vegas area in an 

upwind direction. Monitors located in 

this portion of the State have not 

measured elevated ozone 

concentrations. There is no likelihood of 

economic integration with Las Vegas 

and the Reservation does not have 

sources that contribute to nonattainment 

in the Las Vegas area. 

V. What Action Is EPA Taking To 

Designate These Portions of Clark 

County?

We are revising 40 CFR 81.329 to 

specify the revised boundaries of the 

nonattainment area within Clark 

County, Nevada. As explained above, 

the Las Vegas nonattainment area will 

include hydrographic areas 164A, 164B, 

165, 166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 

and 218. From this area we are 

excluding that portion within the 

Moapa River Indian Reservation and the 

Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. The 

remainder of Clark County, along with 

these reservations, will be included 

with the rest of the State as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ 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. 

The effective date for these 

designations codified in 40 CFR 81.329 

will be September 13, 2004. Section 

553(d) of the Administrative Procedure 

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). Without expediting the effective 

date for today’s action, all of Clark 

County would be designated 

nonattainment effective September 13, 

2004. This designation could create 

significant confusion and potential 

substantive obligations for portions of 

Clark County that are being removed 

from the nonattainment area in today’s 

action. Even in the areas of Clark 

County that continue to be considered 

nonattainment in today’s action, having 

two effective dates will create confusion 

regarding deadlines for submittals and 

may serve only to delay requirements 

for planning. The effective date for 

today’s action is therefore justified 

under the APA because: (1) It relieves a 

restriction by narrowing the boundaries 

of the Las Vegas nonattainment area that 

would otherwise become effective on 

September 13, 2004; and (2) it is in the 

public interest to avoid confusion and 

delay associated with overlapping 

designations and effective dates. 

As noted in our June 18, 2004 deferral 

action (69 FR 34076), we do 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 the deferred effective 

date. Likewise, the time by which 

attainment occurs should not be affected 

by the deferral. 

VI. Final Action 

The EPA is revising the 8-hour ozone 

designations for Clark County, Nevada. 

We are defining new boundaries for the 

Las Vegas nonattainment area and 

including the remaining portions of the 

County with the rest of the State as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ We are 

amending 40 CFR 81.329 to reflect these 

revised designations. 

VII. 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 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 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 

revises the nonattainment designations 

for Clark County, Nevada that were 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55961

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 Procedure 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 part 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 revises 

the boundaries of the Las Vegas 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area in Clark 

County, Nevada. The revision narrows 

the boundaries of the nonattainment 

area and will not impose any new 

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 one 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 one 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 narrowing the 

definition of the Las Vegas 

nonattainment area in Clark County, 

Nevada. 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 one 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 classification and 

designation of areas as attainment or 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The CAA provides for States 

to develop plans to regulate emissions 

of air pollutants within their 

jurisdictions. The TAR gives Tribes the 

opportunity to develop and implement 

CAA programs such as programs to 

attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion 

of the Tribe whether to develop these 

programs and which programs, or 

appropriate elements of a program, they 

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 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, EPA did conduct 

outreach with Tribal representatives 

regarding the designations. These 

discussions informed EPA about key 

Tribal concerns regarding designations 

as the rule was under development. 

55962 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

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

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

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 in 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), Pub. L. 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 September 13, 

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 today’s final action 

revises 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 

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: September 10, 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 

revised to read as follows:

§ 81.329 Nevada.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55963

NEVADA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Las Vegas, NV: 

Clark County (part) .......................................................... (2) Nonattainment ................ (2) Subpart 1. 

That portion of Clark County that lies in hydrographic 

areas 164A, 164B, 165, 166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 

216, 217, and 218 but excluding the Moapa River Indian Reservation and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation.b

Rest of State ........................................................................... .................... Unclassifiable/Attainment.

Carson City 

Churchill County 

Clark County 

(part) remainder 

Douglas County 

Elko County 

Esmeralda County 

Eureka County 

Humboldt County 

Lander County 

Lincoln County 

Lyon County 

Mineral County 

Nye County 

Pershing County 

Storey County 

Washoe County (Reno Area) 

White Pine County 

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

bThe use of reservation boundaries for this designation is for purposes of CAA planning only and is not intended to be a federal determination 

of the exact boundaries of the reservations. Nor does the specific listing of the Tribes in this table confer, deny or withdraw Federal recognition of 

any of the Tribes listed or not listed. 1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

2The effective date is September 13, 2004. 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–20973 Filed 9–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0155; FRL–7368–1]

Dinotefuran; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for combined residues of 

dinotefuran N-methyl-N’-nitro-N’-

[(tetrahydro-3-

furanyl)methyl)]guanidine and its 

metabolites DN [1-methy-3-(tetrahydro3-furylmethyl)]guanidine and UF [1-

methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-

furylmethyl)urea], expressed as 

dinotefuran in or on vegetable, leafy, 

except Brassica, group 4. Mitsui 

Chemicals, Inc. requested this tolerance 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 17, 2004. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

number OPP–2004–0155. 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., 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 Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita 

Kumar, Registration Division (7505C), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8291; e-mail address: 

kumar.rita@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., 

agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers.

• Animal production (NAICS 112), 

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy 

cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), 

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers;