Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56697

invite your comments on how this rule 

might impact tribal governments, even if 

that impact may not constitute a ‘‘tribal 

implication’’ under the Order. 

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 

systems 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 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

from further environmental 

documentation. 

We have considered the security zone 

access constraints around passenger 

vessels and have determined the public 

can safely transit the affected waterways 

outside the security zone, without 

significant impact on the environment.

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 § 165.511.

§ 165.511 Security Zone; Atlantic Ocean, 

Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, Delaware 

Bay, Delaware River and its tributaries. 

(a) Location. A 500-yard radius 

around escorted passenger vessels in the 

Captain of the Port, Philadelphia zone 

as defined in 33 CFR 3.25–05. 

(b) Regulations. (1) All persons are 

required to comply with the general 

regulations governing security zones in 

§ 165.33 of this part. 

(2) All persons or vessels operating at 

the minimum safe speed necessary to 

maintain navigation may transit within 

500 yards of an escorted passenger 

vessel without the permission of the 

Captain of the Port Philadelphia, PA or 

designated representative while the 

escorted passenger vessel is in the 

Captain of the Port Philadelphia zone. 

(3) No person or vessel may transit or 

remain within 100 yards of an escorted 

passenger vessel without the permission 

of the Captain of the Port Philadelphia, 

PA or designated representative while 

the passenger vessel is in the Captain of 

the Port Philadelphia zone. 

(4) Any person or vessel authorized to 

enter the security zone must operate in 

strict conformance with any directions 

given by the Captain of the Port 

Philadelphia, PA or designated 

representative and leave the security 

zone immediately if the Captain of the 

Port Philadelphia, PA or designated 

representative so orders. 

(5) When an escorted passenger vessel 

approaches within 100 yards of any 

vessel that is moored or anchored, the 

stationary vessel must stay moored or 

anchored while it remains within 100 

yards of the passenger vessel unless it 

is either ordered by or given permission 

by the Captain of the Port, Philadelphia 

or designated representative to do 

otherwise. 

(6) The Coast Guard designated 

representative enforcing this section can 

be contacted on VHF Marine Band 

Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain 

of the Port can be contacted at (215) 

271–4807. 

(c) Maneuver-restricted vessels. When 

conditions permit, the Captain of the 

Port or designated representative 

should: 

(1) Permit vessels constrained by their 

navigational draft or restricted in their 

ability to maneuver to pass within the 

100 yards of the passenger vessel in 

order to ensure safe passage in 

accordance with the Navigation Rules as 

seen in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapters D 

and E; and 

(2) Permit vessels constrained by their 

navigational draft or restricted in their 

ability to maneuver that must transit via 

a navigable channel or waterway to pass 

within 100 yards of an anchored 

passenger vessel. 

(d) Definitions. As used in this 

section—

Captain of the Port means the 

Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office/Group 

Philadelphia or any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been authorized by the Captain 

of the Port to act as a designated 

representative on his behalf. 

Escort means assets (surface or air) 

with the Coast Guard insignia that 

accompany and protect the escorted 

vessel, armed with crew-served 

weapons that are manned and ready. 

Passenger Vessels means vessels 

greater than 100 feet in length, over 100 

gross tons that are authorized to carry 

500 or more passengers, making voyages 

lasting more than 24 hours, except for 

ferries.

Dated: September 10, 2004. 

Jonathan D. Sarubbi, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Philadelphia.

[FR Doc. 04–21245 Filed 9–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[OAR–2003–0083; FRL–7816–2] 

Air Quality Classifications for the 8-

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

authorizes EPA to reclassify certain 

ozone nonattainment areas shortly after 

56698 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

the initial classification for such areas. 

In the April 30, 2004 Federal Register

action establishing the 8-hour ozone 

designations and classifications, we 

described this reclassification process 

and listed criteria that we intended to 

use to evaluate a reclassification 

request. Requests to reclassify ozone 

nonattainment areas from moderate to 

marginal were submitted by the 

respective States for the following areas: 

Cass and Muskegon Counties, Michigan; 

Detroit, Michigan; Greensboro, North 

Carolina; Kent/Queen Anne Counties, 

Maryland; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; 

LaPorte, Indiana; Memphis, Arkansas/

Tennessee; and Richmond, Virginia. 

This rule reclassifies certain areas that 

are designated nonattainment for the 8-

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on November 22, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OAR 2003–0083 (Designations). All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the EDOCKET index at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Office of Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center is (202) 566–1742. In addition, 

we have placed a copy of the rule and 

a variety of materials regarding 

designations on EPA’s designation Web 

site at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/

glo/designations. Materials relevant to 

Early Action Compact (EAC) areas are 

on EPA’s Web site at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/

wl040218_eac_resources.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Annie Nikbakht, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code C539–02, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, phone number (919) 541–

5246 or by e-mail at: 

nikbakht.annie@epa.gov. You may also 

contact Mr. Doug Grano, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code C539–02, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, phone number (919) 541–

3292 or by e-mail at: 

grano.doug@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

The following is an outline of the 

preamble.

I. What is the Purpose of this Document? 

II. How is Ground-Level Ozone Formed? 

III. What are the Health Concerns Addressed 

by the 8-Hour Ozone Standard? 

IV. What is the Chronology of Events Leading 

Up to This Rule? 

V. What are the CAA Requirements for Air 

Quality Classifications? 

VI. What are the Requirements for 

Reclassifying 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas? 

VII. What Reclassification Requests Did EPA 

Receive and What Action is EPA Taking 

on the Requests? 

VIII. Does This Action Impact the Deferred 

Effective Date of Nonattainment 

Designations for the Greensboro EAC 

Area? 

IX. If an Area is Bumped Down to Marginal, 

then Misses the Attainment Date and is 

Bumped Up from Moderate, What Due 

Dates Apply? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Purpose of This 

Document? 

The purpose of this document is to 

take action on requests from States to 

reclassify certain areas with respect to 

the 8-hour ground-level ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA is approving the requests for 

the following areas: Cass and Muskegon 

Counties, Michigan; Detroit, Michigan; 

Greensboro, North Carolina; Kent/

Queen Anne Counties, Maryland; 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania; LaPorte, 

Indiana; Memphis, Arkansas/Tennessee; 

and Richmond, Virginia. 

II. How Is Ground-Level Ozone 

Formed? 

Ground-level ozone (sometimes 

referred to as smog) is formed by the 

reaction of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in 

the atmosphere in the presence of 

sunlight. These two pollutants, often 

referred to as ozone precursors, are 

emitted by many types of pollution 

sources, including on-road and off-road 

motor vehicles and engines, power 

plants and industrial facilities, and 

smaller sources, collectively referred to 

as area sources. Ozone is predominately 

a summertime air pollutant. Changing 

weather patterns contribute to yearly 

differences in ozone concentrations 

from region to region. Ozone and the 

pollutants that form ozone also can be 

transported into an area from pollution 

sources found hundreds of miles 

upwind.

III. What Are the Health Concerns 

Addressed by the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard? 

During the hot summer months, 

ground-level ozone reaches unhealthy 

levels in several parts of the country. 

Ozone is a significant health concern, 

particularly for children and people 

with asthma and other respiratory 

diseases. Ozone has also been associated 

with increased hospitalizations and 

emergency room visits for respiratory 

causes, school absences, and reduced 

activity and productivity because 

people are suffering from ozone-related 

respiratory symptoms. 

Breathing ozone can trigger a variety 

of health problems. Ozone can irritate 

the respiratory system, causing 

coughing, throat irritation, an 

uncomfortable sensation in the chest, 

and/or pain when breathing deeply. 

Ozone can worsen asthma and possibly 

other respiratory diseases, such as 

bronchitis and emphysema. When 

ozone levels are high, more people with 

asthma have attacks that require a 

doctor’s attention or the use of 

additional medication. Ozone can 

reduce lung function and make it more 

difficult to breathe deeply, and 

breathing may become more rapid and 

shallow than normal, thereby limiting a 

person’s normal activity. In addition, 

breathing ozone can inflame and 

damage the lining of the lungs, which 

may lead to permanent changes in lung 

tissue, irreversible reductions in lung 

function, and a lower quality of life if 

the inflammation occurs repeatedly over 

a long time period (months, years, a 

lifetime). People who are particularly 

susceptible to the effects of ozone 

include children and adults who are 

active outdoors, people with respiratory 

disease, such as asthma, and people 

with unusual sensitivity to ozone. More 

detailed information on the health 

effects of ozone can be found at the 

following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/

s_o3_index.html.

IV. What Is the Chronology of Events 

Leading Up to This Rule? 

In 1979, EPA promulgated the 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone 

standard, (44 FR 8202, February 8, 

1979). On July 18, 1997, we 

promulgated a revised ozone standard of 

0.08 ppm, measured over an 8-hour 

period, i.e., the 8-hour standard (62 FR 

38856). The 8-hour NAAQS rule was 

challenged by numerous litigants and in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56699

1State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule.’’ April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498 at 13501 and 13510).

2Areas subject to subpart 2 are also subject to 

subpart 1 requirements that are not pre-empted by 

a more specific mandate under subpart 2.

3For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, design value is 

defined at 40 CFR 51.900(c). For the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, design value is defined at 40 CFR 

51.900(d).

4 In the Phase 2 implementation rule, we will 

address the control obligations that apply to areas 

under both subpart 1 and subpart 2.

5At this time, there are no areas with design 

values in the extreme classification for the 8-hour 

ozone standard.

May 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the DC Circuit issued a decision 

remanding, but not vacating, the 8-hour 

ozone standard. Among other things, the 

Court recognized that EPA is required to 

designate areas for any new or revised 

NAAQS in accordance with the CAA 

and addressed a number of other issues, 

which are not related to designations. 

American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 

F.3d 1027, 1047–48, on rehearing 195 

F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir., 1999). We sought 

review of two aspects of that decision in 

the U.S. Supreme Court. In February 

2001, the Supreme Court upheld our 

authority to set the NAAQS and 

remanded the case back to the D.C. 

Circuit for disposition of issues the 

Court did not address in its initial 

decision. Whitman v. American 

Trucking Assoc., 121 S.Ct. 903, 911–

914, 916–919 (2001) (Whitman). In 

March 2002, the D.C. Circuit rejected all 

remaining challenges to the 8-hour 

ozone standard. American Trucking 

Assoc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d 355 (D.C. Cir., 

2002). 

The process for designations 

following promulgation of a NAAQS is 

contained in section 107(d)(1) of the 

CAA. The CAA defines ‘‘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.

The final rule establishing 

designations for all areas of the country 

was signed by the EPA Administrator on 

April 15, 2004 and published in the 

Federal Register on April 30, 2004 (69 

FR 23858). That rule also sets forth the 

classifications for certain ozone 

nonattainment areas. Section 181(a) of 

the CAA provides that areas will be 

classified at the time of designation. For 

further information on designations and 

classifications, the reader should 

consult the April 30, 2004 rulemaking 

action. Classifications are discussed 

below. 

V. What Are the CAA Requirements for 

Air Quality Classifications? 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions-subpart 1 and subpart 2-that 

address planning and control 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas. Both are found in title I, part D. 

Subpart 1 (which we refer to as ‘‘basic’’

nonattainment) contains general, less 

prescriptive, requirements for 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 (which 

we refer to as ‘‘classified’’

nonattainment) provides more specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas.1 Some areas are subject only to 

the provisions of subpart 1. Other areas 

are subject to the provisions of subpart 

2.2 Subpart 2 areas are classified based 

on each area’s design value. Control 

requirements are linked to each 

classification. Areas with more serious 

ozone pollution are subject to more 

prescribed requirements. Under our 8-

hour ozone implementation rule, signed 

on April 15, 2004, an area was classified 

under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour 

design value 3 if it had a 1-hour design 

value at or above 0.121 ppm (69 FR 

23954 and 40 CFR 51.902). All other 

areas are covered under subpart 1.

Any area with a 1-hour ozone design 

value (based on the most recent 3 years 

of data) that meets or exceeds the 

statutory level of 0.121 ppm that 

Congress specified in Table 1 of section 

181 is classified under subpart 2 and is 

subject to the control obligations 

associated with its classification.4

Subpart 2 areas were classified as 

marginal, moderate, serious, or severe 

based on the area’s 8-hour design value 

calculated using the most recent 3 years 

of data.5 As described in the Phase 1 

implementation rule, since Table 1 is 

based on 1-hour design values, we 

promulgated in that rule a regulation 

translating the thresholds in Table 1 of 

section 181 from 1-hour values to 8-

hour values. (See Table 1, below, 

‘‘Classification for 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS’’ from 40 CFR 51.903.)

TABLE 1.—CLASSIFICATION FOR 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

Area class 

8-hour design 

value (ppm 

ozone) 

Maximum period for attainment in state plans 

(years after effective 

date of nonattainment 

designation for 8-hour 

NAAQS) 

Marginal ........................................................................................................... from ........................... 0.085 3 

up to * ........................ 0.092 

Moderate .......................................................................................................... from ........................... 0.092 6 

up to * ........................ 0.107 

Serious ............................................................................................................. from ........................... 0.107 9 

up to * ........................ 0.120 

Severe-15 ........................................................................................................ from ........................... 0.120 15 

up to * ........................ 0.127 

Severe-17 ........................................................................................................ from ........................... 0.127 17 

up to * ........................ 0.187 

Extreme ............................................................................................................ equal to or above ...... 0.187 20 

* But not including. 

56700 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. What Are the Requirements for 

Reclassifying 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas?

Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone 

nonattainment area may be reclassified 

‘‘if an area classified under paragraph 

(1) (Table 1) would have been classified 

in another category if the design value 

in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 

percent less than the level on which 

such classification was based.’’ The EPA 

previously described criteria to 

implement the section 181(a)(4) 

provisions in a final rule designating 

and classifying areas for the 1-hour 

ozone standard published on November 

6, 1991 (56 FR 56698). As stated in that 

final rule, the provisions of section 

181(a)(4) set out general criteria and 

grant the Administrator broad discretion 

in making or determining not to make, 

a reclassification. As part of the 1991 

action, EPA developed more specific 

criteria to evaluate whether it is 

appropriate to reclassify a particular 

area. The EPA also described these 

criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. 

The general and specific criteria are as 

follows: 

General: The EPA may consider the 

number of exceedances of the national 

primary ambient air quality standard for 

ozone in the area, the level of pollution 

transport between the area and other 

affected areas, including both intrastate 

and interstate transport, and the mix of 

sources and air pollutants in the area. 

Request by State: The EPA does not 

intend to exercise its authority to bump 

down areas on EPA’s own initiative. 

Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State 

to submit a request for a bump down. 

A Tribe may also submit such a request 

and, in the case of a multi-state 

nonattainment area, all affected States 

must submit the reclassification request. 

Discontinuity: A five percent 

reclassification must not result in an 

illogical or excessive discontinuity 

relative to surrounding areas. In 

particular, in light of the area-wide 

nature of ozone formation, a 

reclassification should not create a 

‘‘donut hole’’ where an area of one 

classification is surrounded by areas of 

higher classification. 

Attainment: Evidence should be 

available that the proposed area would 

be able to attain by the earlier date 

specified by the lower classification in 

the case of a bump down. 

Emissions reductions: Evidence 

should be available that the area would 

be very likely to achieve the appropriate 

total percent emission reduction 

necessary in order to attain in the 

shorter time period for a bump down. 

Trends: Near- and long-term trends in 

emissions and air quality should 

support a reclassification. Historical air 

quality data should indicate substantial 

air quality improvement for a bump 

down. Growth projections and emission 

trends should support a bump down. In 

addition, we will consider whether 

vehicle miles traveled and other 

indicators of emissions are increasing at 

higher than normal rates. 

Years of data: For the 8-hour ozone 

standard, the 2001–2003 period is 

central to determining classification. 

Data from 2004 may be used to 

corroborate a bump down request but 

should not be the sole foundation for 

the bump down request. 

Limitations on Bump Downs: An area 

may only be reclassified to the next 

lower classification. An area cannot 

present data from other years as 

justification to be reclassified to an even 

lower classification. In addition, section 

181(a)(4) does not permit moving areas 

from subpart 2 into subpart 1. 

In 1991, EPA approved 

reclassifications when the area met the 

first requirement (a request by the State 

to EPA) and at least some of the other 

criteria and did not violate any of the 

criteria (emissions, reductions, trends, 

etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on 

designations and classifications, we 

stated our intention to use this method 

and these criteria once again to evaluate 

reclassification requests under section 

181(a)(4), with minor changes described 

in that action. In that action, we also 

described how we applied these criteria 

in 1991. For additional information, see 

section 5, ‘‘Areas requesting a 5% 

downshift per § 181(a)(4) and EPA’s 

response to those requests,’’ of the 

Technical Support Document, October 

1991, for the 1991 rule. [Docket A–90–

42A.] 

The April 30, 2004 action invited 

States to submit the reclassification 

requests within 30 days of the effective 

date of the designations and 

classifications. The effective date was 

June 15 which means that 

reclassification requests were to be 

submitted by July 15, 2004. This 

relatively short timeframe is necessary 

because section 181(a)(4) only 

authorizes the Administrator to make 

such reclassifications within 90 days 

after the initial classification, September 

15, 2004. 

As described in the April 30, 2004 

action, an ozone nonattainment area 

may also request reclassification under 

section 181(a)(4) to the next higher 

classification. While no State requested 

a reclassification upward during this 

time period, EPA notes that a State may 

make a request for a higher 

classification at any time under section 

181(b)(3). This provision directs EPA to 

grant a State’s request for a higher 

classification and to publish notice of 

the request and EPA’s approval.

VII. What Reclassification Requests Did 

EPA Receive and What Action Is EPA 

Taking on the Requests? 

This section describes each 

reclassification request received by EPA 

and the results of EPA’s evaluation of 

each request. As described below, EPA 

evaluated the requests with respect to 

the criteria described in section IV of 

this notice. More detailed information is 

available in EPA’s Technical Support 

Document for Five Percent 

Reclassifications, September 2004, 

which contains the requests, supporting 

documentation, and EPA’s evaluation. 

Cass County, Michigan 

The EPA designated this area as a 

moderate ozone nonattainment on April 

15, 2004 based on its 8-hour ozone 

value of 93 parts per billion (ppb). On 

July 15, 2004 the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality submitted a 

request to reclassify Cass County from 

moderate ozone nonattainment to 

marginal ozone nonattainment. Cass 

County has small population and very 

low emissions. Reclassification to 

marginal will not result in a 

discontinuity since all of the counties 

immediately bordering Cass County are 

either designated as attainment or are 

subpart 1 nonattainment. 

The Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCo) used modeling 

results performed to support the 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration for the 

Lake Michigan area and applied 8-hour 

ozone metrics. As noted in Michigan’s 

petition, the LADCo modeling was 

designed to assess 1-hour ozone and, as 

such, there are some limitations with 

using it to assess 8-hour ozone. On the 

other hand, it should be noted that three 

of the four modeled episodes are 

representative periods for high 8-hour 

ozone and basecase model performance 

for 8-hour ozone was found to be as 

good as (or better than) that for 1-hour 

ozone. The local scale LADCo modeling 

indicates that Cass County will be in 

attainment (81 ppb) in 2007. 

Additionally, regional scale modeling 

from the proposed Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) indicates the area will be in 

attainment (83 ppb) in 2010. 

The emissions trend is expected to 

significantly decrease due to the 

implementation of various regional 

rules, including the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 

57356) and rules contained in 1-hour 

ozone attainment plans in the Lake 

Michigan area. The trend in the 4th 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56701

highest values for ozone from 2002, 

2003 and 2004 show a decrease from 

103 ppb, to 89 ppb and, 74 ppb, 

respectively. Further, it can be expected 

that ozone values will continue at these 

lower levels due to the implementation 

of national and regional rules.

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for reclassification 

to marginal for Cass County: The design 

value of 93 ppb meets our criteria to 

qualify for consideration of bump down, 

local and regional modeling analyses 

indicate air quality will be improving 

over the next several years and support 

attainment by the marginal area 

attainment date, a short term trends 

analysis shows ozone values decreasing, 

and additional reductions from regional 

and national regulations will continue 

this trend in lowering ambient ozone 

values. Thus, the reclassification request 

for Cass County meets all of the criteria 

(request, discontinuity, attainment, 

emission reductions, trends, and data) 

EPA established (69 FR 23863). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for Cass County. 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour values (design value is 97 ppb). On 

July 15, 2004, the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

submitted a request to reclassify DetroitAnn Arbor (Southeast Michigan) area 

from moderate to marginal ozone 

nonattainment. The Southeast Michigan 

Council of Governments (SEMCoG)is 

the lead local planning agency for the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area. The MDEQ and 

SEMCoG worked jointly to prepare the 

reclassification request. Reclassification 

will not create a discontinuity since all 

adjacent nonattainment areas to the 

Detroit-Ann Arbor area are subpart 1 

nonattainment. 

Under section 181(a)(4), an ozone 

nonattainment area may be reclassified 

‘‘if an area classified under paragraph 

(1) (Table 1) would have been classified 

in another category if the design value 

in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 

percent less than the level on which 

such classification was based.’’ In the 

April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that 

an area with a moderate design value of 

96 ppb (or less) would be eligible to 

request a bump down because five 

percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a 

marginal design value. In their petition, 

Michigan requested EPA to use a 

rounding convention that would allow 

the ‘‘5 percent’’ calculation to be a factor 

of up to 5.49 percent. After reviewing 

the methodology for handling of 

percentages in EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on 

Data Handling Conventions For the 8-

Hour Ozone NAAQS’’ (December 1998), 

EPA believes values up to 5.4% are 

acceptable for the bump down 

calculation. The Guideline indicates 

percent values are rounded up for the 

purpose of determining data 

completeness (specifically the Guideline 

states, 74.5% is 75% and 89.5 is 90%). 

Since there is nothing in the Guideline 

to suggest this percentage rounding 

convention is inappropriate for other 

calculations involving ambient air 

quality data, EPA believes it is 

acceptable for the bump down 

calculation. Using 0.054 as 5% and 97 

ppb (moderate) as the design value, then 

(0.054) * 97 = 91.8, which is a marginal 

value. Thus, the area is eligible to 

request a bump down. 

Modeling by LADCo to support the 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

for the Lake Michigan area was applied 

to 8-hour ozone metrics. This modeling 

indicates that the Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area may be very close to attainment (85 

ppb) in 2007. However, as noted in 

Michigan’s petition, the LADCO 

subregional modeling was designed to 

assess 1-hour ozone and, as such, there 

are some limitations with using it to 

assess 8-hour ozone. For example, the 

episodes and modeling domain were 

selected for the Lake Michigan region 

and may not accurately represent other 

cities in the modeling domain, such as 

Detroit. On the other hand, it should be 

noted that three of the four modeled 

episodes are representative periods for 

high 8-hour ozone and basecase model 

performance for 8-hour ozone was 

found to be as good as (or better than) 

that for 1-hour ozone. Additional, 

regional scale, CAIR modeling (January 

2004 proposal) indicates the area will be 

in attainment (84 ppb) by 2010. The 

CAIR modeling, however, was not 

designed to provide results for years 

prior to 2010. In summary, EPA believes 

the LADCo and CAIR modeling analyses 

are not conclusive with respect to the 

area’s attainment status in 2007. 

Although neither analysis is as 

comprehensive an assessment as would 

be expected with a SIP attainment 

demonstration, they do provide support 

for a decision to reclassify the area. Both 

modeling analyses indicate air quality 

will be improving over the next several 

years. Further decreases can be expected 

once MDEQ and SEMCoG have selected 

control measures for the area and these 

measures are implemented.

Emissions reductions are already 

occurring in various sectors throughout 

the area. VOC and NOX from on-road 

mobile sources will decline by 40% and 

37%, respectively, between 2002 and 

2007, even after accounting for 

increasing levels of travel. This trend 

will continue to 2010, reaching 

reductions of 54% for both pollutants. 

Point sources’ emissions of NOX will 

decline from implementation of the 

NOX SIP Call between 2004 and 2007. 

Additionally, MDEQ and SEMCoG have 

committed to evaluating a list of 

measures including vehicle inspection 

and maintenance, lower emitting fuels, 

degreasing, architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings, consumer/

commercial products, tighter VOC 

RACT rules, and gas can replacement. 

The process for choosing appropriate 

control measures for the area will be 

completed by June 2005. MDEQ and 

SEMCoG have also committed to an 

aggressive schedule to implement 

controls that will help the area attain by 

2007. 

While a long-term trends analysis for 

the Detroit-Ann Arbor area does not 

show a declining trend in ozone values, 

that can be attributed to the abnormally 

high values experienced in the area in 

June 2003. The maximum concentration 

in 2004, to date, is 83 ppb, which may 

mark the beginning of at least a short 

term air quality trend downward. It can 

be expected that ozone values will 

decrease due to the declines in NOX and 

VOC emissions described in the 

preceding paragraph. 

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for downward 

revision to the 8-hour ozone 

classification for Detroit-Ann Arbor 

area: the design value of 97 ppb meets 

our criteria to qualify for consideration 

of bump down, local and regional 

modeling analyses indicate air quality 

will be improving over the next several 

years, regional and national regulations 

will continue this trend in lowering 

ambient ozone values, the State and 

local agencies responsible for air quality 

planning have committed to an 

aggressive schedule to identify and 

implement controls that will help the 

area attain by the marginal attainment 

date of June 15, 2007. Thus, the request 

meets certain criteria EPA established 

(request, discontinuity, emission 

reductions, and data) and does not 

violate any of the criteria (attainment 

and trends). Therefore, EPA is 

approving the reclassification request 

for the Detroit-Ann Arbor area. 

Greensboro, North Carolina 

The Greensboro area was designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard on April 15, 2004 and 

classified moderate based on a design 

value of 93 ppb. The State of North 

Carolina presented a petition to EPA, 

Region 4, requesting downward 

reclassification of the Greensboro/

Winston-Salem/High Point (Triad) 

56702 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

ozone nonattainment area from 

moderate to marginal for the 8-hour 

standard. The petition was presented to 

EPA July 14, 2004. Reclassification of 

the Greensboro area to marginal will not 

create a discontinuity since surrounding 

areas would include higher and lower 

classifications (the Charlotte area is 

designated moderate and the Raleigh 

area is subpart 1 nonattainment). 

Local photochemical grid modeling, 

developed under the Early Action 

Compact (EAC) program, demonstrates 

attainment by 2007 for the Triad area 

which includes the Greensboro area. 

The modeling was developed according 

to EPA’s draft 8-hour ozone modeling 

guidance and was used to support a 

deferral of the effective date for the 

nonattainment area. Updated local 

modeling data included in the June 

2004 EAC progress report were 

referenced to support the attainment 

criteria of the reclassification petition. 

In addition, CAIR modeling analyses 

(January 2004) show that Greensboro is 

expected to continue to be in 

compliance with the 8-hour ozone 

standard in 2010. 

Expected emissions reductions are 

detailed in the petition and the EAC 

progress report submittals and include, 

for example, an inspection and 

maintenance program phasing in 

between July 2002 and 2005. Emissions 

data demonstrate a decrease in NOX

emissions of about 382 tons per day 

between 2000 and 2007. Beyond 2007, 

further NOX emissions reductions are 

expected due to the Federal, State and 

local control measures. VOC emissions 

will decrease by 20 tons per day 

between 2000 and 2007 with additional 

future reductions expected. An 

aggressive control program is being 

implemented throughout the State that 

affects stationary and mobile sources. 

Since 1998, monitored ozone levels at 

the Greensboro area monitors have 

steadily decreased and support 

reclassification.

In summary, the reclassification 

request for Greensboro meets all of the 

criteria EPA established (69 FR 23863), 

including request by the State, 

supporting trends in emissions and air 

quality, and modeling evidence that the 

area would be able to attain by the 

earlier date (2007). The EPA is 

approving the reclassification request 

for Greensboro because the request 

meets all of the criteria EPA established. 

Kent/Queen Anne Counties, Maryland 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour ozone values (design value is 95 

ppb). On July 15, 2004 the Maryland 

Department of the Environment 

submitted a request to reclassify Kent 

and Queen Anne’s Counties from 

moderate to marginal ozone 

nonattainment. Kent and Queen Anne’s 

Counties, MD are located on Maryland’s 

eastern shore. Reclassification of Kent 

and Queen Anne’s Counties will not 

create a discontinuity since there would 

be no area of one classification 

surrounded by areas of a higher 

classification. All of the other counties 

immediately bordering Kent and Queen 

Anne’s Counties are either designated as 

attainment or moderate nonattainment. 

Maryland submitted a modeling study 

that was performed as part of an earlier 

effort related to the Early Action 

Compact (EAC) program. This modeling 

was performed in accordance with EPA 

guidance. Initially, however, Maryland 

had applied the relative reduction factor 

(RRF) to the wrong ozone design value 

year. This was remedied by applying the 

RRF to the larger of the 2000 or 2003 

ozone design value. When this 

correction was made, a value of 82.3 

ppb was obtained, demonstrating that 

these counties should attain the ozone 

standard by 2007. The EPA’s January 

2004 CAIR modeling projects 

nonattainment for Kent County, MD in 

the 2010 attainment year (86 ppb). 

Because EPA guidance indicates that 

smaller scale modeling is generally 

more appropriate for attainment 

demonstrations, EPA believes that the 

local scale air quality modeling (EAC 

modeling) which projects attainment in 

2007 should carry more weight. In 

summary, both modeling analyses 

indicate air quality will be improving 

over the next several years and EPA 

believes the EAC modeling analysis 

strongly indicates the area will attain 

the ozone standard by 2007. 

The emissions trend is expected to 

decrease due to the implementation of 

various regional rules, including the 

NOX SIP Call and regional rules 

contained in 1-hour ozone attainment 

plans in the Baltimore and Washington 

D.C. area. In addition, because the state 

of Maryland is located in the statutorilyestablished Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR), Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties 

have been implementing several 

moderate nonattainment area level 

emission. Moderate area OTR controls 

include RACT, NSR, and Stage II 

comparable measures. Queen Anne’s 

county, being part of the 1990 Baltimore 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was 

also required under the OTR 

requirements, to implement a high 

enhanced I/M program and has been 

doing so. 

The 17-year ozone air quality trends 

in Kent county (Queen Anne’s does not 

have an ozone monitor) are relatively 

flat. The last two years of complete data, 

however, may mark the beginning of at 

least a short term air quality trend 

downward. The 4th highest values for 

ozone from 2002 and 2003 are 103 and 

86 ppb, respectively. Further, it can be 

expected that ozone values will decline 

due to the implementation of national 

and regional rules relative to ozone 

levels in recent years. 

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for reclassification 

to marginal for Kent and Queen Anne’s 

Counties: the design value of 95 ppb 

meets our criteria to qualify for 

consideration of bump down, local 

modeling provides strong evidence that 

the area will attain by 2007, additional 

reductions from regional and national 

regulations should lower ambient ozone 

values. Thus, the request meets certain 

criteria EPA established (request, 

discontinuity, emission reductions, 

attainment, and data) and does not 

violate any of the criteria (trends). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for Kent and 

Queen Anne’s Counties.

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour ozone values (design value is 92 

ppb). On July 9, 2004 the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

submitted a request to reclassify 

Lancaster County from moderate to 

marginal ozone nonattainment. 

Lancaster, PA is a single county 8 hour 

ozone nonattainment area located 

immediately west of the Philadelphia 

moderate 8 hour ozone nonattainment 

area and immediately north of the 

Baltimore moderate 8 hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The counties 

adjacent to and surrounding Lancaster 

on its west and north are designated 

subpart 1 (‘‘basic’’) 8 hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. Reclassification of 

Lancaster County will not create a 

discontinuity since there would be no 

area of one classification surrounded by 

areas of a higher classification. 

The EPA’s January 2004 CAIR 

modeling projects attainment for 

Lancaster County, PA in the 2010 

attainment year (83 ppb). No local air 

quality modeling is available. The EPA 

believes the CAIR modeling analysis is 

not conclusive with respect to 

Lancaster’s attainment status in 2007; 

the analysis is not as comprehensive an 

assessment as would be expected with 

a SIP attainment demonstration. 

However the CAIR analysis provides 

support for a decision to reclassify the 

area since it indicates air quality will be 

improving over the next several years. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56703

The emissions trend is expected to 

decrease due to the implementation of 

various regional rules, including the 

NOX SIP Call and rules contained in 1-

hour ozone attainment plans in the 

Baltimore, Philadelphia and 

Washington, DC areas. In addition, 

because the state of Pennsylvania is 

located in the statutorily-established 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR), 

Lancaster County has been 

implementing moderate nonattainment 

area level emission controls. Moderate 

area OTR controls include RACT, NSR, 

and Stage II comparable measures. In 

addition, Lancaster has an OTR 

enhanced I/M program that became state 

law in November 2003 and has been 

implemented since February 2004. 

The area’s design value is 92 ppb, just 

one ppb above the marginal 

classification design value based on 

2001–2003 data. The 17-year ozone air 

quality trends in Lancaster County are 

relatively flat. The short-term trend in 

the 4th highest 8-hour ozone value over 

the last 3 years is downward (97, 96, 

and 83 ppb). Further, it can be expected 

that ozone values will decline due to the 

implementation of national and regional 

rules relative to ozone levels in recent 

years.

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for reclassification 

to marginal for Lancaster County: the 

design value of 92 ppb meets our 

criteria to qualify for consideration of 

bump down, CAIR modeling indicates 

air quality will be improving over the 

next several years, and additional 

reductions from regional and national 

regulations should lower ambient ozone 

values. Thus, the request meets certain 

criteria EPA established (request, 

discontinuity, emission reductions, and 

data) and does not violate any of the 

criteria (attainment and trends). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for Lancaster 

County. 

LaPorte, Indiana 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour ozone values (design value is 93 

ppb). On July 15, 2004 the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management submitted a request to 

reclassify LaPorte County from 

moderate to marginal ozone 

nonattainment. LaPorte County is highly 

impacted by transport due to the Lake 

Michigan ozone phenomenon. LaPorte 

County has few major sources. 

Reclassification of LaPorte County to 

marginal will not result in a 

discontinuity since the only area that is 

adjacent to Laporte County that has a 

higher classification is the Chicago-Gary 

moderate nonattainment area. All of the 

other counties immediately bordering 

LaPorte County are either designated as 

attainment or are subpart 1 

nonattainment. 

Modeling by LADCo to support the 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

for the Lake Michigan area was applied 

to 8-hour ozone metrics. As noted in 

Michigan’s petition, the LADCo 

modeling was designed to assess 1-hour 

ozone and, as such, there are some 

limitations with using it to assess 8-hour 

ozone. On the other hand, it should be 

noted that three of the four modeled 

episodes are representative periods for 

high 8-hour ozone and basecase model 

performance for 8-hour ozone was 

found to be as good as (or better than) 

that for 1-hour ozone. The local scale 

LADCo modeling indicates that air 

quality is expected to improve (from 93 

to 89 ppb) in LaPorte County, but may 

not reach attainment in 2007. Since this 

modeling was performed before the 

Heavy Duty Engine rule was proposed, 

it does not reflect emission reductions 

from that national program. Use of a 

more recent emission inventory and 

base design value would likely result in 

lower predicted concentrations. 

Additional, regional scale, modeling 

from the CAIR proposal indicates the 

area will be in attainment (84 ppb) by 

2010. The CAIR modeling, however, 

was not designed to provide results for 

years prior to 2010. In summary, EPA 

believes the LADCo and CAIR modeling 

analyses are not conclusive with respect 

to LaPorte’s attainment status in 2007. 

Although neither analysis is as 

comprehensive an assessment as would 

be expected with a SIP attainment 

demonstration, they do provide support 

for a decision to reclassify the area. Both 

modeling analyses indicate air quality 

will be improving over the next several 

years. 

The emissions trend is expected to 

significantly decrease due to the 

implementation of various regional 

rules, including the NOX SIP Call and 

rules contained in 1-hour ozone 

attainment plans in the Lake Michigan 

area. The trend in the 4th highest values 

for ozone from 2002, 2003 and 2004 

show a large decrease at both the 

Michigan City and the City of LaPorte 

monitors from 107/100 ppb in 2002, to 

82/84 ppb and, most recently, 68/71 

ppb. Further, it can be expected that 

ozone values will continue at these 

lower levels due to the implementation 

of national and regional rules. 

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for downward 

revision to the 8-hour ozone 

classification for LaPorte County: The 

design value of 93 ppb meets our 

criteria to qualify for consideration of 

bump down, local modeling shows that 

the area will be close to attainment in 

2007, proposed CAIR modeling shows 

the area will attain by 2010, a short term 

trends analysis shows large decreases in 

ozone values and additional reductions 

from regional and national regulations 

will support this trend in low ambient 

ozone values. Thus, the request meets 

certain criteria EPA established (request, 

discontinuity, emission reductions, 

trends, and data) and does not violate 

any of the criteria (attainment). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for LaPorte 

County.

Memphis, Arkansas/Tennessee 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour ozone values (design value is 92 

ppb). The States of Tennessee and 

Arkansas submitted the petition by the 

date required. The petitioners have 

emphasized that the States of Tennessee 

and Arkansas, along with the local 

governments of Shelby and Crittenden 

Counties, have produced a plan of 

action which will result in real ozone 

reductions and attainment by 2007 

through an exhaustive collaborative 

effort. Reclassification of the Memphis 

area will not create a discontinuity since 

there would be no area of one 

classification surrounded by an area of 

a higher classification. 

The modeling submitted showed 

attainment when using a methodology 

for adjusting meteorology. The 

appropriateness of this method is under 

review by EPA. EPA’s evaluation of the 

modeling submitted without a 

meteorology adjustment and other 

assumptions shows the design value 

declining to 88 ppb by 2007, which 

makes notable progress toward 

attainment. Also, EPA’s CAIR modeling 

shows the area should have a design 

value of 86 ppb by 2010, which also 

shows notable progress towards 

attainment. In addition, the CAIR 

modeling does not include any local 

controls expected prior to 2007. 

Therefore, local controls could be 

expected to further lower the CAIR 2010 

design value. Both modeling analyses 

indicate more reductions are needed 

beyond those relied on in the local 

modeling in order to attain by 2007. 

Additional controls beyond those 

modeled have been identified in the 

petition. 

Attainment is expected because of the 

combination of measures to be 

implemented and potential measures 

listed in the petition along with the 

commitment of the areas to implement 

additional measures as needed to 

56704 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

achieve attainment As strong support 

for adequate emission reductions being 

implemented, Arkansas is conducting a 

study with limited additional modeling 

which should identify the sources 

affecting the monitors more precisely. 

Arkansas, Tennessee and the MemphisShelby County local agency are 

committed to assess the results of the 

study and implement additional 

controls beyond those modeled or 

identified in the reclassification petition 

by 2006, if required by the study results. 

This commitment is made by the 

Governors, State, and Local officials of 

both States as signatories to the petition. 

In addition, the State of Tennessee and 

the City of Memphis/Shelby County 

have submitted letters reinforcing the 

commitments to adopt and implement 

additional measures as the modeling 

and study results might identify. 

The petition lists 19 emission 

reduction measures for potential 

implementation at the state and local 

level. These measures, when combined 

with potential Federal measures 

expected during the period, could bring 

the area into attainment by 2007. 

Tennessee is considering measures such 

as NOX Reasonably Available Control 

Technology rules for stationary sources, 

expanded Stage I vapor recovery, 

emissions inspections, and antitampering measures. Memphis-Shelby 

county is considering measures such as 

diesel engine idling limits, reduced 

speed limits, controlled burning 

restrictions, and On Board Diagnostic II 

emission testing. Arkansas is 

considering measures such as Stage I 

vapor recovery, truck stop 

electrification, and replacement/retrofit 

construction equipment engines. The 

EPA has provided Arkansas with 

$100,000 in funds to implement truck 

stop electrification in Crittenden 

County. 

The area’s design value is 92 ppb, one 

ppb above the marginal classification 

design value based on 2001–2003 data. 

The area has not had any exceedences 

at the Crittenden County monitor in 

2004 through September 10; the 4th 

highest monitor value is 78 ppb. If this 

value remains the 4th highest for 2004, 

the design value will decline to 87, well 

within the marginal range and only 3 

ppb above the attainment level. Also, 

with the monitor values already 

established for 2002 and 2003 for the 

Shelby County monitors, the 2004 data, 

to date, are indicating attainment. The 

design value trends for the two Shelby 

County monitors have declined since 

2000. 

The emissions from ozone precursors 

VOC and NOX from stationary sources 

in Shelby County, TN have declined 

significantly since 1993. Emissions 

estimates in the Memphis Early Action 

compact March 31, 2004 submittal, 

indicate that emissions should decrease 

by 28% for NOX and 19% for VOCs 

from 2001 to 2007. Tennessee is 

included in the NOX SIP Call region and 

pursuant to the State plan adopted to 

meet the SIP Call, the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) Allen Power Plant will 

reduce NOX emissions by 57.5 tons per 

day (tpd). We anticipate the 2004 and 

2005 design values will show air quality 

improvements from these measures. 

Thus, the air quality and emissions 

trends support reclassification.

In summary, the data, analysis, and 

commitments presented in the petition 

support the likelihood of attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard by 2007 and 

support the request for downward 

revision to the 8-hour ozone 

classification for the Memphis area. 

Specifically, the Request by States

criteria is satisfied since the petition 

was submitted by the governors of 

Tennessee and Arkansas; the 

Discontinuity criteria is satisfied since 

there would be no area of one 

classification surrounded by one or 

more areas of a higher classification; the 

Attainment criteria is not failed since 

the modeling shows notable progress 

toward attainment; the Emissions 

Reductions criteria is satisfied because 

of the emission reductions available and 

the commitment by the state and local 

agencies to adopt and implement any 

controls necessary to attain the 8-hour 

standard based on a comprehensive 

study of sources contributing to 

nonattainment; the Trends criteria is 

satisfied since the downward trends in 

air quality monitor and emissions data 

over the time period to attainment are 

strong indicators of progress towards 

attainment; and the Years of Data

criteria is satisfied since the years 

chosen (2001–2003) are consistent with 

the time period used for the 

designations for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Thus, the request meets 

certain criteria EPA established (request, 

discontinuity, emission reductions, 

trends, and data) and does not violate 

any of the criteria (attainment). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for Memphis. 

Muskegon County, Michigan 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour values (design value is 95 ppb). On 

July 15, 2004 MDEQ submitted a request 

to reclassify Cass County from moderate 

ozone nonattainment to marginal ozone 

nonattainment. Muskegon County is 

highly impacted by transport due to the 

Lake Michigan ozone phenomenon. 

Muskegon County has few major 

sources. Reclassification of Muskegon 

County to marginal will not result in a 

discontinuity since all of the counties 

immediately bordering Muskegon 

County are either designated as 

attainment or are subpart 1 

nonattainment. 

Modeling by LADCo to support the 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

for the Lake Michigan area was applied 

to 8-hour ozone metrics. As noted in 

Michigan’s petition, the LADCo 

modeling was designed to assess 1-hour 

ozone and, as such, there are some 

limitations with using it to assess 8-hour 

ozone. On the other hand, it should be 

noted that three of the four modeled 

episodes are representative periods for 

high 8-hour ozone and basecase model 

performance for 8-hour ozone was 

found to be as good as (or better than) 

that for 1-hour ozone. The local scale 

LADCo modeling indicates that 

Muskegon County will be near 

attainment (86 ppb) in 2007. Since this 

modeling was performed before the 

Heavy Duty Engine rule was proposed, 

it does not reflect emission reductions 

from that national program. Use of a 

more recent emission inventory and 

base design value would likely result in 

lower predicted concentrations. 

Additional, regional scale, modeling 

from the January 2004 CAIR proposal 

indicates the area will be in attainment 

(82 ppb) by 2010. The CAIR modeling, 

however, was not designed to provide 

results for years prior to 2010. The EPA 

believes the LADCo and CAIR modeling 

analyses are not conclusive with respect 

to Muskegon’s attainment status in 

2007. Although neither analysis is as 

comprehensive an assessment as would 

be expected with a SIP attainment 

demonstration, they do provide support 

for a decision to reclassify the area. Both 

modeling analyses indicate air quality 

will be improving over the next several 

years. 

The emissions trend is expected to 

significantly decrease due to the 

implementation of various regional 

rules, including the NOX SIP Call and 

rules contained in 1-hour ozone 

attainment plans in the Lake Michigan 

area. The trend in the 4th highest values 

for ozone from 2002, 2003 and 2004 

show a decrease from 96 ppb, to 94 ppb 

and, most recently, 70 ppb. Further, it 

can be expected that ozone values will 

continue at these lower levels due to the 

implementation of national and regional 

rules.

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for downward 

revision to the 8-hour ozone 

classification for Muskegon County: the 

design value of 95 ppb meets our 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56705

6See notices under the heading ‘‘1-Hour Ozone 

Federal Register Notices Changes to a Higher 

Classification’’ at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/

greenbk/ofr2rpt2.html.

criteria to qualify for consideration of 

bump down, local and regional 

modeling analyses indicate air quality 

will be improving over the next several 

years, a short term trends analysis 

shows ozone values decreasing and 

additional reductions from regional and 

national regulations will continue this 

trend in lowering ambient ozone values. 

Thus, the request meets certain criteria 

EPA established (request, discontinuity, 

emission reductions, trends, and data) 

and does not violate any of the criteria 

(attainment). Therefore, EPA is 

approving the reclassification request 

for Muskegon County. 

Richmond, Virginia 

The EPA designated this area as 

moderate on April 15, 2004 due to 8-

hour ozone values (design value is 94 

ppb). On July 12, 2004 the Virginia 

Department of the Environmental 

Quality submitted a request to reclassify 

Richmond from moderate to marginal 

ozone nonattainment. The Richmond, 

VA moderate ozone nonattainment area 

consists of five counties (Charles City, 

Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and 

Prince George) and four independent 

cities (Colonial Heights, Hopewell, 

Petersburg, and Richmond). This area is 

adjacent to the southeast edge of the 

Washington D.C. moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. To the northeast of 

Richmond, and across the Chesapeake 

Bay, is the Philadelphia moderate 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area. 

Richmond is also adjacent to and 

located to the northwest of the NorfolkVirginia Beach, VA subpart 1 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. 

Reclassification of the Richmond area 

will not create a discontinuity since 

there would be no area of one 

classification surrounded by areas of a 

higher classification. 

The modeling performed by Virginia 

for demonstrating attainment in 

Richmond by 2007 was based on 

modeling conducted for the Roanoke, 

VA EAC. While not optimized for the 

Richmond area, this modeling can be 

used to indicate whether Richmond 

might attain by 2007. The EAC 

modeling projects attainment in the 

Richmond area in 2007. The highest of 

these projected design values is 84.1 

ppb for the Hanover monitor. In 

addition, EPA’s January 2004 CAIR 

modeling projects Richmond’s ozone 

concentrations to be well below the 

ozone standard in 2010 (77 ppb). 

Although neither analysis is as 

comprehensive an assessment as would 

be expected with a SIP attainment 

demonstration, together they provide 

support that the Richmond area will 

attain the ozone standard by 2007. 

On August 30, 2004, the Director of 

Virginia’s Department of Environmental 

Quality submitted a letter to EPA 

(followed up by a letter on September 2, 

2004 from the VA Air Director) 

committing to adopt additional 

emission control measures to reduce 

ozone levels. Several of these measures 

are already in place in the smaller 1-

hour Richmond ozone nonattainment 

area or in the northern Virginia 

(Washington DC) 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. This letter stated 

that control measures such as 

reformulated gasoline, stage I, and 

existing source RACT regulations would 

be extended into the larger Richmond 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area. The 

northern Virginia control measures 

(solvent cleaning, architectural and 

maintenance coatings, motor vehicle 

refinishing, and portable fuel 

containers) would be studied and the 

process of adoption for the Richmond 8-

hour ozone nonattainment area would 

commence. Therefore, the emissions 

trend is expected to decrease due to the 

implementation of various local, 

regional, and national rules. 

The ozone air quality trends in the 

Richmond area are relatively flat. It can 

be expected that ozone values will 

decline due to the implementation of 

local, regional, and national rules 

relative to ozone levels in recent years. 

In summary, the following factors 

support the request for reclassification 

to marginal for the Richmond area: the 

design value of 94 ppb meets our 

criteria to qualify for consideration of 

bump down, local and regional 

modeling together with declining 

emissions from local, regional and 

national regulations support the 

conclusion that Richmond is likely to 

attain by 2007. Thus, the request meets 

certain criteria EPA established (request, 

discontinuity, emission reductions, 

attainment, and data) and does not 

violate any of the criteria (trends). 

Therefore, EPA is approving the 

reclassification request for the 

Richmond area. 

VIII. Does This Action Impact the 

Deferred Effective Date of 

Nonattainment Designations for the 

Greensboro EAC Area? 

As long as the Greensboro area 

continues to meet the milestones and 

submissions that compact areas are 

required to complete, the area would 

continue to be eligible for a deferred 

effective date of the nonattainment 

designation for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The effective date of the 8-

hour ozone nonattainment designation 

for the compact area counties listed in 

40 CFR part 81 remains deferred until 

September 30, 2005. Additional 

information on EACs is contained in the 

April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23864–

23876).

IX. If an Area is Bumped Down to 

Marginal, Then Misses the Attainment 

Date and is Bumped Up to Moderate, 

What Due Dates Apply? 

Within 6 months following the 

applicable attainment date [including 

any extension thereof pursuant to 

section 181(a)(5)] for an ozone 

nonattainment area, the Administrator 

is required to determine, based on the 

area’s design value (as of the attainment 

date), whether the area attained the 

standard by that date. Any area that the 

Administrator finds has not attained the 

standard by that date shall be 

reclassified by operation of law to the 

higher of (i) the next higher 

classification for the area, or (ii) the 

classification applicable to the area’s 

design value as of the attainment date. 

Section 182(i) of the CAA specifies 

that the deadlines provided under the 

requirements of section 182 remain 

applicable, except that the 

Administrator ‘‘may adjust any 

applicable deadlines (other than 

attainment dates) to the extent such 

adjustment is necessary or appropriate 

to assure consistency among the 

required submissions.’’ All required 

controls and emissions reductions must 

be implemented or achieved on a 

schedule that facilitates attainment by 

the attainment date. 

In previous rulemaking actions, EPA 

has provided 12–18 months for States to 

submit required SIP revisions.6

However, States should plan to adopt 

controls as soon as possible because the 

determination of whether the area 

attains the NAAQS by the attainment 

deadline must be based on air quality 

during the preceeding three ozone 

seasons. That is, the determination of 

whether a moderate area attains the 

NAAQS by June 15, 2010 will be based 

on air quality during the 2007–2009 

period. Thus, the sooner the moderatearea controls are implemented, the more 

likely the area will reach attainment by 

the 2010 attainment date.

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA 

to designate and classify areas. The CAA 

then specifies requirements for areas 

based on whether such areas are 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS 

56706 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

and their classification, if any. In this 

final rule, we reclassify certain areas 

designated nonattainment. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘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 final action to reclassify nine 

ozone nonattainment areas from 

moderate to marginal does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is a small industrial entity 

as defined in the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards. 

(See 13 CFR 121.); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

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

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

This rule is not subject to the RFA 

because it was not subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements. 

After considering the economic impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, I 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Today’s final action does not include 

a Federal mandate within the meaning 

of UMRA that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any 1 year by either State, local, or 

Tribal governments in the aggregate or 

to the private sector, and therefore, is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It 

does not create any additional 

requirements beyond those of the 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for Ozone (62 FR 38894; July 

18, 1997), therefore, no UMRA analysis 

is needed. This rule reclassifies certain 

areas with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The CAA requires States to 

develop plans, including control 

measures, based on their designations 

and classifications. 

The EPA believes that any new 

controls imposed as a result of this 

action will not cost in the aggregate 

$100 million or more annually. Thus, 

this Federal action will not impose 

mandates that will require expenditures 

of $100 million or more in the aggregate 

in any 1 year. Nonetheless, EPA carried 

out consultations with governmental 

entities affected by this rule, including 

States and local air pollution control 

agencies. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56707

Although Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this rule, EPA discussed 

the reclassification process with 

representatives of State and local air 

pollution control agencies and Tribal 

governments. This rule is not subject to 

notice and comment and, therefore, no 

proposed rulemaking was prepared 

which specifically solicited comment on 

the reclassifications. However, we 

provided notification of the 

reclassification process and our criteria 

in the April 30, 2004 Federal Register

action. 

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 reclassification of certain 

areas for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 

CAA provides for States to develop 

plans to regulate emissions of air 

pollutants within their jurisdictions. 

The Tribal Authority Rule (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 outreach 

to Tribal representatives regarding the 

reclassifications. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

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

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

The final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this rule present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

Nonetheless, we have evaluated the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children. 

The results of this risk assessment are 

contained in the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule 

(62 FR 38855–38896; 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. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any VCS. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. 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). 

K. Judicial Review 

Sections 172(a)(1)(B) and 181(a)(3) 

provide that classification 

determinations ‘‘shall not be subject to 

judicial review until the Administrator 

takes final action’’ approving or 

disapproving a SIP revision or triggering 

sanctions under section 179 with 

respect to a SIP revision required for an 

area’s classification. Thus, any petitions 

for review of a classification decision 

made in this action must be filed within 

60 days of publication of a final EPA 

action triggering sanctions with respect 

to a SIP submission required for the 

area’s classification or approving or 

disapproving a SIP required for the 

area’s classification. Since such 

challenge would be brought in 

conjunction with EPA’s action regarding 

a SIP submission, a petition for review 

challenging the classification decision 

should be brought in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National Parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: September 15, 2004. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 81, subpart C is 

amended as follows:

56708 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 81—DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment 

Status Designations

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 2. In § 81.304, the table entitled 

‘‘Arkansas-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Crittenden County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.304 Arkansas.

* * * * *

ARKANSAS-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Memphis,TN–AR: (AQCR 018 Metropolitan Memphis Interstate) 

Crittenden County ............................................................ (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

2 November 22, 2004. 

■ 3. In § 81.315, the table entitled 

‘‘Indiana-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for ‘‘La 

Porte County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

La Porte Co., IN: 

La Porte County ............................................................... (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

2 November 22, 2004. 

■ 4. In § 81.321, the table entitled 

‘‘Maryland-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties’’ to 

read as follows:

§ 81.321 Maryland.

* * * * *

MARYLAND-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Kent and Queen Anne’s Cos., MD: 

Kent County ..................................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Queen Anne’s County ...................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

3 November 22, 2004. 

■ 5. In § 81.323, the table entitled 

‘‘Michigan-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Cass, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, 

Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, 

Wayne, and Muskegon Counties’ to read 

as follows:

§ 81.323 Michigan.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56709

MICHIGAN-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Cass County, MI: 

Cass County ..................................................................... (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI: 

Lenawee County .............................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Livingston County ............................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Macomb County ............................................................... (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Monroe County ................................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Oakland County ............................................................... (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

St. Clair County ................................................................ (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Washtenaw County .......................................................... (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Wayne County .................................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

Muskegon, MI: 

Muskegon County ............................................................ (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

2 November 22, 2004. 

■ 6. In § 81.334, the table entitled ‘‘North 

Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, 

Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, and 

Rockingham Counties’ to read as follows:

§ 81.334 North Carolina.

* * * * *

NORTH CAROLINA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC: 

Alamance County ............................................................. (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Caswell County ................................................................ (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Davidson County .............................................................. (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Davie County .................................................................... (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Forsyth County ................................................................. (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Guilford County ................................................................ (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Randolph County ............................................................. (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Rockingham County ......................................................... (2) (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

2Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until September 30, 2005. 

3 November 22, 2004. 

■ 7. In § 81.339, the table entitled 

‘‘Pennsylvania-Ozone (8-Hour 

Standard)’’ is amended by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Lancaster County’’ to read as 

follows:

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

PENNSYLVANIA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Lancaster, PA: 

Lancaster County ............................................................. (2) Nonattainment ............... (2) Subpart 2/Marginal 

56710 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

PENNSYLVANIA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

2 November 22, 2004. 

■ 8. In § 81.343, the table entitled 

‘‘Tennessee-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Shelby County’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.343 Tennessee.

* * * * *

TENNESSEE-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Memphis,TN–AR: 

Shelby County .................................................................. (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

3 November 22, 2004. 

■ 9. In § 81.347, the table entitled 

‘‘Virginia-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Charles City County, Chesterfield 

County, Colonial Heights City, Hanover 

County, Henrico County, Hopewell City, 

Petersburg City, Prince George County, 

and Richmond City’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.347 Virginia.

* * * * *

VIRGINIA-OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Richmond-Petersburg, VA: 

Charles City County ......................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Chesterfield County .......................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Colonial Heights City ........................................................ (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Hanover County ............................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Henrico County ................................................................ (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Hopewell City ................................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Petersburg City ................................................................ (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Prince George County ..................................................... (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

Richmond City .................................................................. (3) Nonattainment ............... (3) Subpart 2/Marginal 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * * * 

3 November 22, 2004. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56711

[FR Doc. 04–21184 Filed 9–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0278; FRL–7679–5] 

Tribenuron Methyl; Pesticide 

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of tribenuron 

methyl in or on canola, seed; cotton, gin 

byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; 

and flax, seed. E.I. DuPont De Nemours 

and Company requested this tolerance 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA). In addition, this regulatory 

action is part of the tolerance 

reassessment requirements of section 

408(q) of the FFDCA 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), 

as amended by the FQPA of 1996. By 

law, EPA is required to reassess 100% 

of the tolerances in existence on August 

2, 1996, by August 2006. This regulatory 

action will count for eight reassessments 

toward the August 2006 deadline.

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 22, 2004. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 22, 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 

identification (ID) number OPP–2004–

0278. 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:

James Tompkins, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

703–305–5697 e-mail address: 

tompkins.jim@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; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users.

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of This Document and Other Related 

Information?

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:/

/www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 

access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the 

OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines 

referenced in this document, go directly 

to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/

opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of July 7, 2004 

(69 FR 40909) (FRL–7364–8), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 0F6135) by E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours and Company, 

DuPont Crop Protection, Barley Mill 

Plaza, Wilmington, DE 19880–0038. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.451 

be amended by establishing a tolerance 

for residues of the herbicide tribenuron 

methyl, [methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy -6-

methyl-1, 3, 5-triazin-2-yl)

methylamino]

carbobyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoate], in 

or on imazethapyr tolerant canola at 

0.02 parts per million (ppm), cotton gin 

trash at 0.02 ppm, cotton seed at 0.02 

ppm, and Crop Development Center 

(CDC) triffid flax at 0.02 ppm. That 

notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by E. I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Company, the registrant. 

There were no comments received in 

response to the notice of filing.

During the course of the review the 

Agency decided to correct the Company 

address and correct the listings for the 

commodities canola, cotton and flax. 

The company address is changed to 

DuPont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell 

Research Center, Newark, DE 19714. 

The listing of the commodities 

imazethapyr tolerant canola, cotton 

seed, cotton gin trash and Crop 

Development Center (CDC) triffid flax 

are corrected to read canola, seed; 

cotton, undelinted seed; cotton, gin 

byproducts and flax, seed; respectively.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. * * *’’

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate