24368 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

1We had previously received a draft of the plan 

for review.

2Appendix D of the Indian Wells plan.

3Appendix E of the Indian Wells plan.

4 Ibid.

5Appendix D of the Indian Wells plan.

6Appendix E of the Indian Wells plan.

(B) Other materials submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 

support of and pertaining to the RACT 

determinations for the source listed in 

paragraph (c)(202)(i)(B) of this section.

[FR Doc. 03–11181 Filed 5–6–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CA–276–0380; FRL–7461–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas; California—Indian Wells 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) of the moderate area plan and 

maintenance plan for the Indian Wells 

Valley planning area in California and 

redesignating the area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

June 6, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours. You can inspect copies 

of the submitted SIP revisions at the 

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District, 2700 ‘‘M’’ Street, Suite 302, 

Bakersfield, CA 93301. 

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I 

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Irwin, Air Planning Office (AIR–

2), EPA Region 9, at (415) 947–4116 or: 

irwin.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 17, 2002 we proposed 

to approve the PM–10 moderate area 

nonattainment plan and maintenance 

plan and the redesignation request for 

the Indian Wells Valley planning area 

(Indian Wells plan) submitted to EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) on December 5, 2002.1 67 FR 

77196. In the proposal, we discussed in 

detail the CAA provisions for PM–10 

moderate area plans, including EPA’s 

clean data approach to areas such as the 

Indian Wells Valley, and the Act’s 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

redesignation to attainment. In the 

proposal, we also evaluated the 

moderate area plan and maintenance 

plan and redesignation request 

according to the CAA and applicable 

EPA guidance. The reader is advised to 

refer to the proposal for these detailed 

discussions as they are not repeated 

here. In short, EPA, among other 

findings, determined that:

(1) The Indian Wells Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area has attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS based on three years of 

quality assured monitoring data; 

(2) The emissions inventory in the 

plan is current, accurate and complete 

per CAA section 172(c)(3); 

(3) Control measures that can be 

attributed as responsible for bringing the 

area into attainment meet the 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) requirement per CAA section 

189(a)(1)(C); 

(4) The air quality improvement in the 

area is due to permanent and 

enforceable measures; 

(5) The plan adequately demonstrates 

future maintenance of the NAAQS for at 

least ten years into the future; 

(6) The motor vehicle emission 

budgets contained in the plan meet the 

purposes of CAA section 176(c)(1) and 

the transportation conformity rule at 40 

CFR part 93, subpart A; and 

(7) The area’s maintenance 

demonstration does not rely on 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) and, therefore, the area need not 

have a fully approved nonattainment 

NSR program prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. 

EPA did not receive any public 

comments on the proposed rule. 

II. Summary of Action 

With this final action, we are 

incorporating the moderate area plan 

and maintenance plan and 

redesignation request for the Indian 

Wells Valley Planning area, September 

5, 2002, into the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We are also 

approving the following measures, city 

ordinances, and commitments into the 

California SIP:

1. Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the 

Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, 

California (September 1, 1994).2 This 

plan establishes controls for unpaved 

roads, disturbed vacant land and open 

storage piles.

2. Kern County 1990 Land Use 

Ordinance—Chapter 18.55 and Kern 

County Development Standards, 

Chapter III. This ordinance requires 

paving of streets for new subdivisions 

according to the County Development 

Standards.3

3. City of Ridgecrest Municipal Code 

1980 which requires paving of streets 

for new subdivisions.4

4. ARB Executive Order G–125–295 

which contains a commitment for future 

PM–10 air quality monitoring in the 

Indian Wells Valley planning area. 

We are also approving the following 

rules as RACM with respect to control 

of process fugitive emissions, however, 

as indicated by the following dates, they 

are already included in the California 

SIP: Rule 401 ‘‘Visible Emissions,’’

November 29, 1993; Rule 404.1 

‘‘Particulate Matter Concentration, April 

18, 1972; and Rule 405 ‘‘Particulate 

Matter Emission Rate,’’ July 18, 1983. In 

addition, we are approving as RACM in 

the Indian Wells area the paving of 

unpaved roads between 1993 and the 

present 5 and Bureau of Land 

Management closure of 83 miles of 

unpaved roads/off-highway vehicle 

trails, between 1994 and the present.6

With this final action, the Indian 

Wells Valley PM–10 nonattainment area 

is redesignated to attainment for the 24-

hour and annual PM–10 NAAQS. The 

CAA requirements of the NSR program 

are replaced by the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21, per the 

delegation agreement between EPA and 

Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District dated August 12, 1999. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this final action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

For this reason, this final action is also 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). It merely approves State law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 24369

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

approves pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This final rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This final action 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This final rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This final rule 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 7, 2003. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control.

Dated: February 24, 2003. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—California

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(306) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(306) The following plan was 

submitted on December 5, 2002, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District. 

(1) PM–10 (Respirable Dust) 

Attainment Demonstration, 

Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation 

Request (excluding pages 4–1, 4–2, 6–1, 

6–2, Appendix A, and pages D–12 

through D–37 of Appendix D) adopted 

on September 5, 2002. 

(B) California Air Resources Board, 

California. 

(1) California Air Resources Board 

Executive Order G–125–295 adopted on 

December 4, 2002.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows:

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

■ 2. In § 81.305 the PM–10 table is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Indian Wells Valley planning area under 

‘‘Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare, San 

Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera Counties’’ to 

read as follows:

§ 81.305 California.

* * * * *

CALIFORNIA—PM–10 

Designated area Designation 

Date 1 Classification 

Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 

Madera Counties: 

Indian Wells Valley planning area ................................... 09/5/02 Nonattainment ............... July 7, 2003 Attainment. 

That portion of Kern County contained within Hydrologic 

Unit #18090205.

* * * * * * * 

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 

24370 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 03–7640 Filed 5–6–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2003–0140; FRL–7302–7] 

Pesticide Tolerance Processing Fees; 

Annual Adjustment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule increases fees 

charged for processing tolerance 

petitions for pesticides under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). As specified in 40 CFR 

180.33(o), the existing fee schedule is 

changed annually by the same 

percentage as the percent change in the 

Federal General Schedule (GS) pay 

scale. Accordingly, the revisions in this 

rule reflect a 4.27% increase in locality 

pay for civilian Federal GS employees 

working in the Washington, DC and 

Baltimore, MD metropolitan area in 

2003.

DATES: This rule is effective June 6, 

2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information concerning this rule 

contact: Ed Setren, Resources 

Management Staff (7501C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone: (703) 305–5927; fax: (703) 

305–5060; e-mail address: 

setren.edward@epa.gov. 

For technical information concerning 

tolerance petitions and individual fees 

contact: Sonya Brooks, Resources 

Management Staff (7501C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone: (703) 308–6423; fax: (703) 

305–5060; e-mail address: 

brooks.sonya@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this Rule Apply to Me? 

This rule may directly affect any 

person who might petition the Agency 

for new tolerances, hold a pesticide 

registration with existing tolerances, or 

anyone who is interested in obtaining or 

retaining a tolerance in the absence of 

a registration. This group can include 

pesticide manufacturers or formulators, 

companies that manufacture chemicals 

used in formulating pesticides, 

importers of food, grower groups, or any 

person who seeks a tolerance. The vast 

majority of potentially affected 

categories and entities may include, but 

are not limited to: 

• Chemical industry (NAICS codes 

115112 and 325320) e.g., pesticide 

chemical manufacturers, formulators, 

chemical manufacturers of inert 

ingredients 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed above could also be 

regulated. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. How Can I Get Additional 

Information or Copies of this Document 

or Other Documents? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under docket identification (ID) number 

OPP–2002–0140. The official public 

docket consists of the documents 

specifically referenced in this action, 

any public comments received, and 

other information related to this action. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

docket is the collection of materials that 

is available for public viewing at the 

Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, 

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis 

Hwy., 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. 

2. Electronic access. 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 http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/

cfrhtml_00/Title_ 40/

40cfr[180]_00.html, a beta site currently 

under development. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket ID 

number. 

III. What Action is the Agency Taking 

in this Rule? 

With this rule, the Agency is 

increasing the fees charged for 

processing tolerance petitions for 

pesticides under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The 

pay raise in 2003 for Federal General 

Schedule (GS) employees working in 

the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD 

metropolitan pay area is 4.27%. This 

increase in the fees charged for 

processing tolerance petitions reflects 

these recent pay raises. 

IV. Why is the Agency Taking this 

Action? 

EPA is charged with the 

administration of section 408 of FFDCA. 

Section 408 authorizes the Agency to 

establish tolerance levels and 

exemptions from the requirements for 

tolerances for raw agricultural 

commodities. Section 408(o) requires 

the Agency to collect fees that will, in 

the aggregate, be sufficient to cover the 

costs of processing petitions for 

pesticide products. EPA is publishing 

this action pursuant to 40 CFR 

180.33(o). 

The current fee schedule for tolerance 

petitions published in the Federal 

Register of March 13, 2002 (67 FR 

11248) (FRL–6774–3), codified at 40 

CFR 180.33, and became effective on 

April 12, 2002. At that time the fees 

were increased by 4.94%, 3.81%, and 

4.77% to reflect the 2000, 2001, and 

2002 pay adjustments in accordance 

with a provision in the regulation that 

provides for automatic annual 

adjustments to the fees based on annual 

percentage changes in Federal salaries 

(40 CFR 180.33(o)). 

The Federal Employees Pay 

Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) 

initiated locality-based comparability 

pay, known as ‘‘locality pay.’’ The 

intent of the legislation is to make 

Federal pay more responsive to local 

labor market conditions by adjusting 

General Schedule salaries on the basis 

of a comparison with non-Federal rates 

on a geographic, locality basis. The 

processing and review of tolerance 

petitions is conducted by EPA 

employees working in the Washington, 

DC/Baltimore, MD pay area. 

The pay raise in 2003 for Federal 

General Schedule employees working in 

the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD 

metropolitan pay area is 4.27%; 

therefore, the tolerance petition fees are 

being increased by 4.27%. The entire 

revised fee schedule is presented in 

§ 180.33 of the regulatory text for the