[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34076-34080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13851]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[OAR-2003-0083; FRL-7775-5]
Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour
Ozone; National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Deferral of Effective
Date
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a deferral of the effective date, to
September 13, 2004, of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation for
Clark County, Nevada. This deferral is based on additional information
submitted by the State demonstrating that, due to the late finding of
nonattainment in the State, the State did not have sufficient time to
recommend an appropriate boundary for the Las Vegas nonattainment area.
EPA believes the relevant factors for defining a nonattainment area may
support a different boundary recommendation than the one submitted by
the State on April 12, 2004, and a short deferral will provide the
State and EPA time to determine whether such an adjustment is
appropriate. At the same time, it is certain that at least some portion
of Clark County will be designated nonattainment. As such, we do not
intend to use this extension of the effective date of the designation
to affect the deadline for submittal of the State implementation plan
that would otherwise apply if the effective date were not deferred and
further believe the extension should not delay attainment of the ozone
standard or the ability of the State to achieve attainment as
expeditiously as practicable.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 15, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket
ID No. OAR-2003-0083 (Designations). All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is (202) 566-1742. In addition, we have placed a
copy of the rule and a variety of materials regarding designations on
EPA's designation Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/glo/designations and on the Tribal Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal. In addition, the public may inspect the rule and technical
support at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division,
Planning Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Barhite, Chief, Planning
Office, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. The telephone
number is (415) 972-3980. Mr. Barhite can also be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
The EPA is deferring the effective date of the nonattainment
designation for Clark County, Nevada (County). This action modifies the
effective date for Clark County provided in our final 8-hour ozone
designations rule published April 30, 2004. 69 FR 23858. In that final
rule we noted that the effective date for the Clark County
nonattainment designation would be June 15, 2004. See 69 FR at 23919-20
(revising 40 CFR Sec. 81.329). With today's action, the new effective
date for the County's nonattainment designation will be September 13,
2004. We are not changing the designation of the County at this time,
but, as explained below, believe the deferral is necessary to allow the
State of Nevada (State) to account for newly discovered information and
accurately define the appropriate nonattainment area boundaries.
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
On April 15, 2004, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
announcing designations under the 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS).\1\ In that action we designated Clark County
as nonattainment and provided that this designation would become
effective on June 15, 2004. Since that notice, the State has submitted
additional information explaining that the State's recommendation on
the area to be designated nonattainment should be reconsidered and that
such an evaluation was not possible prior to EPA's April 15, 2004
deadline for signing the 8-hour ozone designations. Letter from Allen
Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to
Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(June 9, 2004).\2\ In the June 9, 2004 letter the State explains that
it did not have time to make an appropriate recommendation regarding
the boundaries of the nonattainment area in Clark County because it was
not discovered until late February 2004 that any portion of Nevada
would be designated nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This signature date was a deadline for EPA action in
accordance with a consent decree. The final rule was published on
April 30, 2004. 69 FR 23875.
\2\ This letter supplements an earlier letter dated May 21,
2004, from Governor Kenny C. Guinn to Administrator Leavitt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unusual history of the Clark County designation supports the
State's claim. In July 2003, the State submitted its recommended
designations for the 8-hour ozone designations. See letter from Allen
Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to
Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX (July 10,
2003). Based on the monitoring data provided to the State for the
period of 2000 through 2002, the State concluded that all monitors
within the State were showing compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On December 3, 2003, EPA agreed with the State's recommendation not to
designate any Nevada area as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. See Letter from Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Region IX, to Hon. Kenny C. Guinn, Governor of Nevada (December 3,
2004). In that letter EPA noted that the final designation
determination would be based on monitoring data and design values for
the period 2001 through 2003, but that based on our preliminary review
of the air quality monitoring data for the 2003 ozone season, there
were no areas in Nevada violating the 8-hour ozone standard. Id. In
mid-February 2004, EPA discovered that the July 10, 2003 recommendation
from the State had failed to include
[[Page 34077]]
complete monitoring data for 2001. This overlooked data, in combination
with the new 2003 data, resulted in a 2001-03 design value over the
applicable standard at one of the monitors (Joe Neal) in the Las Vegas
area of Clark County. EPA contacted the State and described that, by
default, the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) that included Clark
and Nye Counties in Nevada and Mohave County in Arizona should be
recommended for designation as nonattainment. Arizona and Nevada were
able to prepare an analysis of the ozone problem in the area that
supported the exclusion of Nye and Mohave Counties from the
nonattainment area. See Letter from Allen Biaggi, Administrator, Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX (April 12, 2004) (transmitting
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) report entitled
``Nevada Air Quality Designations and Boundary Recommendations for the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (March 26, 2004));
Letter from Stephen A. Owens, Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Region IX (March 26, 2004) (transmitting report entitled ``Arizona
Boundary Recommendations for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard'' (March 26, 2004)). As a result, three days before
the EPA deadline for making designations, the State recommended that
Clark County be designated nonattainment. Id. As the State has
subsequently explained, had NDEP and Clark County discovered earlier
that the County should be designated nonattainment, it would have
further analyzed the appropriate boundaries within the 8000-square mile
County for the nonattainment area. Given the late discovery, however,
the State and County could not provide the necessary analysis and
defaulted to the County boundaries.\3\ Given the size of the County,
the geographic features of the area, the location of sources and the
monitoring data collected in the outlying portions of the County, it is
reasonable to conclude that further analysis could have supported an
alternate boundary for the nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The May 21, 2004 letter from Governor Guinn and the June 9,
2004 letter from Allen Biaggi both note that the State has
contracted with the Desert Research Institute to assist in assessing
the appropriate boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 9, 2004 letter, the State further explains why the
missing monitoring data were not discovered until late February, 2004.
The monitoring data in question are from the new Joe Neal monitoring
station, which began operation in 2000. As a result, it was not until
the end of 2003 that three complete years of data were available upon
which to calculate a design value. The State's recommendation had not
included the 2003 data, so it had not focused attention on this monitor
because, at the time, it had mistakenly assumed the monitor had not
been in existence long enough to have an effect on design values.
According to the State, the State and County had an expectation that
the 2001 data would not affect the design value for the 8-hour ozone
designation. See June 9 Letter from Allen Biaggi. The County apparently
did not realize certain 2001 data had not been added to the Air Quality
System--the system used to support the designation recommendations.
Management at the County and State, and within EPA, looking at the
monitoring data in the Air Quality System could not see that additional
data were available that would have changed the designation conclusion.
The State and County have demonstrated to our satisfaction that until
late February 2004, they were not aware that the area should be
designated nonattainment and, as noted above, by that time did not have
time to adequately evaluate the appropriate boundaries for the
nonattainment area.
III. What Action Is EPA Taking To Defer the Effective Date of
Nonattainment Designations for Clark County?
Effective June 15, 2004, EPA will defer until September 13, 2004,
the effective date of nonattainment designations for Clark County,
Nevada by modifying 40 CFR 81.329. EPA is making this change without
notice and comment in accordance with section 107(d)(2) of the Clean
Air Act, which exempts the promulgation of these designations from the
notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
We are making this deferral action effective on June 15, 2004,
which is the date the nonattainment designation would otherwise become
effective. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally
provides that rulemakings shall not be effective less than 30 days
after publication unless the agency finds good cause for an earlier
date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). EPA is invoking the good cause exception to
make the effective date of today's action June 15, 2004. This notice
explains why the current effective date of the nonattainment
designation for Las Vegas should be deferred. Today's action must take
effect by June 15, 2004 in order to achieve that deferral and avoid
unnecessary confusion.
EPA does not intend to extend the deadline for state implementation
plan submission for the Las Vegas nonattainment area. EPA will address
this deadline in a subsequent action but believes it is reasonable to
require submission according to the same schedule to which the area
would be subject without today's deferral of the effective date.
Likewise, the time by which attainment occurs should not be affected by
this action. Today's deferral of the designation effective date should
not delay the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because it is clear
a core area will still be designated nonattainment and attainment is
required as expeditiously as practicable.
IV. Final Action
The EPA is deferring the effective date to September 13, 2004, of
the nonattainment designation for Clark County, Nevada, based on
additional information submitted by the State. We are amending 40 CFR
Sec. 81.329 to reflect the modified effective date for the County.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a
[[Page 34078]]
``significant regulatory action'' because none of the above factors
applies. As such, this final rule was not formally submitted to OMB for
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This rule changes the effective date of a nonattainment designation for
Clark County, Nevada that was promulgated on April 15, 2004. The
present final rule does not establish any new information collection
burden apart from that required by law. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial
entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size
standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. This
rule defers the effective date of the nonattainment designation. The
deferral of the effective date will not impose any requirements on
small entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's final
rule on small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. Today's final action does not include a Federal mandate
within the meaning of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more in any 1 year by either State, local, or Tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, and therefore,
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
It does not create any additional requirements beyond those of the 8-
hour NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 38894; July 18, 1997), therefore, no UMRA
analysis is needed. In this rule, EPA is deferring the effective date
of nonattainment designation for Clark County, Nevada. The EPA believes
that no new controls will be imposed as a result of this action. Thus,
this Federal action will not impose mandates that will require
expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any 1 year.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS.
This rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for
purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
``Tribal implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13175. This
rule concerns the deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment
designation for Clark County, Nevada. This final
[[Page 34079]]
rule does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive Order
13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this rule does not
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the TAR
establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in
developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to
modify that relationship. Because this rule does not have Tribal
implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply. Although Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule,prior to designations action
promulgated on April 15, 2004, EPA did outreach to Tribal
representatives regarding the designations. The EPA supports a national
``Tribal Designations and Implementation Work Group'' which provides an
open forum for all Tribes to voice concerns to EPA about the
designation and implementation process for the NAAQS, including the 8-
hour ozone standard. These discussions informed EPA about key Tribal
concerns regarding designations as the rule was under development.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The final
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a
disproportionate risk to children. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
children. The results of this risk assessment are contained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule (62 FR
38855-38896, July 18, 1997; specifically, 62 FR 38854, 62 FR 38860 and
62 FR 38865).
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Information on the methodology and data
regarding the assessment of potential energy impacts is found in
Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2002, Cost, Emission Reduction, Energy, and
Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule Establishing the
Implementation Framework for the 8-Hour, 0.08 ppm Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, prepared by the Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, April 24, 2003.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS. This action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States on or
before the effective date of this rule. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective June 15, 2004.
K. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This
Section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the
agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.'' The rule designating areas
for the 8-hour ozone standard was ``nationally applicable'' within the
meaning of section 307(b)(1) since it established designations for all
areas of the United States for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Since this final
action defers the effective date of one of the designations made in
that nationwide rulemaking, any petitions for review must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At the core
of the designations rulemaking is EPA's interpretation of the
definition of nonattainment under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. In
determining which areas should be designated nonattainment (or
conversely, should be designated unclassifiable/attainment), EPA used a
set of 11 factors that it applied consistently across the United
States. For the same reasons, the Administrator also determined that
the final designations are of nationwide scope and effect for purposes
of section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because in the
report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the
CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an
action is of ``nationwide scope or effect'' would be appropriate for
any action that has ``scope or effect beyond a single judicial
circuit.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of the designations
rulemaking extend to numerous judicial circuits since the designations
apply to all areas of the country. In these circumstances, section
307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to
find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope or effect'' and for
[[Page 34080]]
venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. Thus, any petitions for review of this
final action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published
in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: June 14, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as
follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 81.329, the table entitled ``Nevada-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Clark County'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.329 Nevada.
* * * * *
Nevada--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Category/classification
Designated area ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas, NV: Clark County............ (\2\) Nonattainment............................ (\2\) Subpart 1.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Effective date deferred until September 13, 2004.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-13851 Filed 6-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P