37746 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 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 thus 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 rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 25, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: May 13, 2003. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8.

■ 40 CFR part 52 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 TT—Utah

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(56) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(56 ) On June 27, 1994 and April 28, 

2000, the Governor of Utah submitted 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan. On December 31, 2002, the State 

of Utah submitted Supplemental 

Administrative Documentation. The 

June 27, 1994 submittal revises the 

numbering and format of Utah’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The April 

28, 2000 and December 31, 2002 

submittals contain non-substantive 

changes to correct minor errors in the 

June 27, 1994 submittal. The provisions 

identified below are approved into the 

SIP and supersede and replace the 

corresponding prior codification of the 

provisions of the SIP. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Utah State Implementation Plan 

Section I; Section II; Section III (except 

III.C); Section IV; Section V; Section VI; 

Section VII (except VII.D); Section IX, 

Part IX.B (except the title, IX.B.3.a, 

IX.B.3.d, IX.B.3.e, and IX.B.4); Section 

IX, Parts C, E, F and G (except the titles); 

Section IX, Part D.1 (except for the title 

and IX.D.1.d (5)); Section XI ( Appendix 

1 and Appendix 2 only); Section XII; 

Section XIII; Section XIV (except Table 

IX.9); Section XV; Section XVI; Section 

XVII (except XVII.A, XVII.D and 

XVII.E); Section XVIII (except XVIII.B); 

and Section XIX, effective 11/12/93. 

(B) Utah State Implementation Plan 

Section IX, Part IX.B.3.d; Section IX, 

titles of Parts B, C, D.1, E, F and G; 

Section XIV, Table XIV.9; Section XVII, 

Parts XVII.A, XVII.D and XVII.E; and 

Section XVIII, Part XVIII.B, effective 2/

25/2000. 

(C) Utah State Implementation Plan 

Section III, Part III.C; Section VII, Part 

VII.D; Section VIII; Section IX, Parts 

IX.B.3.a, IX.B.3.e, IX.B.4, IX.C.7.b(3), 

IX.C.7.h(3), IX.C.8.b(3), IX.C.8.f(1)(a), 

IX.C.8.h(3)(a), IX.C.8.h(3)(c), IX.D.1.d(5), 

IX.D.2.b, IX.D.2.d(1)(a), IX.D.2.e(1), 

IX.D.2.f(1)(a), IX.D.2.h, IX.D.2.i and 

IX.D.2.j; and Section XXII, effective 

January 1, 2003. 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) October 3, 2002 letter from Rick 

Sprott, Utah Department of Air Quality, 

to Richard Long, EPA Region VIII, to 

address typographical errors and 

missing pages in the January 27, 1994 

submittal.

[FR Doc. 03–15900 Filed 6–24–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA 086–SIP; FRL–7518–4] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for 

California State Implementation Plan 

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing our February 

13, 2003 proposed finding (68 FR 7327) 

that the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate for 

all nonattainment air pollution control 

districts in the State and for all

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37747

1We note that certain local exemptions are tied 

to exemptions such as Health and Safety Code 

section 42310(e) provided under State law. Removal 

of the exemption at the State level could 

automatically resolve authority problems at the 

district level. In addition, if the State legislature 

were to not only revise the language of Health and 

Safety Code section 42310(e) but also to clarify that 

any such local exemptions were also void, no 

further action by the districts may be necessary. 

Depending on the action at the State level, EPA may 

be able to make the required finding under 

110(a)(2)(E) that the authority to carry out the air 

permitting programs is not prohibited by any State 

or local law.

attainment area districts that have an 

approved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. We did 

not receive any comments on our 

proposal. EPA is finalizing this finding, 

pursuant to our authority in section 

110(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act), because the State cannot provide 

‘‘necessary assurances’’ that it or the 

districts have authority to carry out the 

applicable nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR) or PSD portions of the 

SIP. This action requires California to 

amend its State law to eliminate the 

permitting exemption as it pertains to 

major agricultural sources of air 

pollution and submit the necessary 

assurances by November 23, 2003 to 

support an affirmative finding by EPA 

under section 110(a)(2)(E). If the State 

fails to submit the necessary assurances 

of authority or if EPA disapproves any 

such submittal in response to this final 

SIP call, the sanctions clock in section 

179 of the Act will be triggered.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

July 25, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office from 8:30 AM 

to 5 PM, Monday-Friday. Please call 24 

hours in advance to accommodate 

building security procedures. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

Copies of the SIPs for the State of 

California are also available for 

inspection at the following location: 

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please call Ed Pike, EPA Region IX, at 

(415) 972–3974 or send e-mail to 

pike.ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. How can California correct the SIP 

inadequacy? 

C. What are the consequences if California 

does not correct the SIP inadequacy ? 

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing? 

CAA section 110(k)(5) provides that 

whenever EPA finds the applicable 

implementation plan ‘‘is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

relevant national ambient air quality 

standard, * * * or to otherwise comply 

with any requirement of this Act, the 

Administrator shall require the State to 

revise the plan as necessary to correct 

such inadequacies.’’ EPA did not 

receive any comments on our February 

13, 2003 proposed finding of 

inadequacy. Today we are finalizing our 

finding that the approved California SIP 

is substantially inadequate. The SIP 

cannot provide ‘‘necessary assurances’’

that the State or districts have the 

authority to issue permits under their 

PSD and nonattainment NSR SIPs to all 

major sources because Health & Safety 

Code section 42310(e) exempts major 

agricultural stationary sources from 

these permitting requirements.

Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 

(I) and 172 of the Act require the 

applicable implementation plan to 

contain a program for issuing permits to 

major stationary sources of air pollution 

pursuant to parts C and D of title I of 

the Act. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each SIP provide necessary 

assurances that the State or districts 

have adequate authority to carry out the 

SIP and that no State law prohibits the 

State or districts from carrying out any 

portion of the SIP. The California SIP 

does not meet these requirements 

because California Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) exempts ‘‘equipment 

used in agricultural operations in the 

growing of crops or the raising of fowl 

or animals’’ from all permitting, 

including PSD and NSR permitting 

otherwise required by parts C and D of 

title I of the Act. As a result, the State 

and districts cannot issue permits to 

these agricultural sources, even if they 

are major stationary sources under the 

Act. The CAA NSR and PSD permitting 

requirements do not provide for this 

exemption. 

B. How Can California Correct the SIP 

Inadequacy? 

To correct the deficiency, EPA 

recommends that the State legislature 

amend Health & Safety Code section 

42310(e) to remove the exemption as it 

applies to major agricultural sources. 

The State is already subject to a 

sanctions clock based on the Notice of 

Deficiency (NOD) that EPA issued on 

May 22, 2002, 67 FR 35990, with respect 

to the State’s title V operating permits 

program. In that NOD, EPA explained 

that California Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) improperly exempted 

major agricultural sources from CAA 

title V permitting. The NOD stated: 

‘‘EPA has determined that significant 

action in this instance means the 

revision or removal of Health and Safety 

Code 42310(e) so that local air pollution 

control districts have the required 

authority to issue title V permits to 

stationary agricultural sources that are 

major sources of air pollution.’’ A 

similar correction with respect to NSR 

and PSD permitting is necessary by 

November 23, 2003 to comply with this 

final action, i.e. remove the agricultural 

exemption for major sources. We are 

setting this deadline to be consistent 

with the deadline established in the 

May 22, 2002 NOD for making the 

revision for Title V purposes. 

Our proposal listed several districts 

that have New Source Review 

exemptions that may pose problems for 

permitting major agricultural stationary 

sources, but did not call for specific 

revisions at this time. We believe it is 

reasonable to wait for the State 

legislature to correct Health and Safety 

Code section 42310(e) before we 

determine whether any such 

exemptions at the district level 

represent authority problems under 

section 110(a)(2)(E).1 EPA, nonetheless, 

encourages districts to evaluate their 

SIP-approved rules to ensure that 

exemptions do not create potential 

authority problems. Once the State acts 

to address Health and Safety Code 

section 42310(e), EPA will work with 

the districts to determine if further 

rulemaking is necessary to address 

specific local deficiencies that remain 

after the State law change.

C. What Are the Consequences if 

California Does Not Correct the SIP 

Inadequacy? 

As noted earlier, California must 

adopt and submit to EPA a revision to

37748 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

2EPA is using its authority in section 110(k)(5) to 

set a deadline for a corrective submittal that is less 

than 18 months. We believe the November 23, 2003, 

deadline for beginning the 18 month sanctions 

clock is reasonable because action by this date is 

otherwise required to address the title V problems 

noted above.

3 It is unclear whether a requirement to submit a 

SIP revision would constitute a federal mandate. 

The obligation for a state to revise its SIP that arises 

out of sections 110(a) and 110(k)(5) of the CAA is 

not legally enforceable by a court of law, and at 

most is a condition for continued receipt of 

highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view an 

action requiring such a submittal as not creating 

any enforceable duty within the meaning of section 

421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658 (a)(I)). Even if 

it did, the duty could be viewed as falling within 

the exception for a condition of Federal assistance 

under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 

658(5)(a)(i)(I)).

State law that will provide the necessary 

assurances that it (or the districts) can 

fully implement the required NSR and 

PSD programs for all major sources, 

including agricultural sources, within 

the State. If EPA determines that the 

State has failed to amend State law by 

November 23, 2003, or if EPA 

subsequently finds the correction does 

not adequately provide such assurances, 

EPA will make a finding under section 

179 of the Act that will start a sanctions 

clock as specified under 40 CFR 52.31.2

There are two types of sanctions: 

highway funding sanctions (section 

179(b)(1)) and offset sanctions (section 

179(b)(2)). Pursuant to our regulations at 

40 CFR 52.31, offset sanctions will 

apply 18 months following a finding by 

EPA under section 179(a); highway 

funding sanctions would apply six 

months later. However, we expect that 

the State will make the necessary 

corrections to avoid sanctions.

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

Today’s SIP call does not establish 

requirements applicable to small 

entities. Instead, it requires the State of 

California to develop, adopt, and submit 

SIP revisions that would provide the 

necessary assurances that the applicable 

NSR and PSD programs do not exempt 

major agricultural sources. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because the rule does not 

establish requirements applicable to 

small entities. Therefore, the 

Administrator certifies that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that this final 

action does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

action will require the State of 

California to revise laws and regulations 

governing exemptions for agricultural 

sources. This requirement, even if 

considered a Federal mandate,3 would 

not result in aggregate costs over $100 

million to either the state or local 

districts. In addition, this final action 

will not significantly or uniquely impact 

small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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, because it does 

not impose a new enforceable duty on 

the State, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, 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. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 122 / Wednesday, June 25, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 37749

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations 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 and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of 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. 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). This rule 

will be effective July 25, 2003. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 August 25, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, New source review, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: July 16, 2003. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 03–16028 Filed 6–24–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2003–0181; FRL–7313–9] 

Flufenacet (N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-

methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide; 

Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a tolerance 

for combined residues of flufenacet (N-

(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2-

[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-

yl]oxy]acetamide and its metabolites 

containing the 4-fluoro-N-methylethyl 

benzenamine moiety in or on corn, 

field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, 

field, stover; and soybean, seed; and for 

indirect or inadvertent residues for 

flufenacet and its metabolites in or on 

alfalfa, forage; alfalfa, hay; alfalfa, seed; 

clover, forage; clover, hay; grain, cereal, 

group 15, except rice; grain, cereal, 

forage, fodder and straw, group 16, 

except rice; and grass, forage, fodder, 

and hay, group 17. BayerCropScience 

requested this tolerance under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

25, 2003. Objections and requests for 

hearings, identified by docket ID 

number OPP–2003–0181, must be 

received on or before August 25, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and 

hearing requests may be submitted 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided in Unit VII. of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James A. Tompkins, Registration 

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW.,Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 305–5697; email 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) 

• Animal production (NAICS 112) 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311) 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532) 

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 Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under docket identification (ID) number 

OPP–2003–0181. The official public