[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25507-25512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11910]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 71

[FRL-7497-4]


Revisions to Federal Operating Permits Program Fee Payment 
Deadlines for California Agricultural Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to amend the Federal 
Operating Permits Program under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) to 
extend the date by which State-exempt major agricultural sources in 
California must pay fees and to allow their permit applications to be 
considered complete even though fees may not have been paid on or 
before the date that applications are due. This action allows EPA to 
process the applications and issue permits while the Agency computes a 
fee amount based on the cost of administering the permits program for 
these sources. The amendments extend the due date for submitting 
operating permit fees to EPA until May 14, 2004, for agricultural 
sources that are major sources subject to title V but are not being 
permitted by 35 local air districts in the State of California. We are 
issuing the amendments as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, 
because we view the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no 
significant adverse comments.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on June 27, 2003 unless 
significant adverse comments are received by June 12, 2003. If 
significant adverse comments are received, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), U.S. EPA West (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0047. By hand delivery/courier, comments may be submitted to EPA Docket 
Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-00047.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Ms. 
Candace Carraway, U.S. EPA, Information Transfer and Program

[[Page 25508]]

Implementation Division, C304-04, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3189, facsimile number (919) 
541-5509, electronic mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' means EPA.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include 
agricultural sources that are major sources subject to title V but are 
not being permitted by any of the following 35 local air districts in 
the State of California: Amador County Air Pollution Control District 
(APCD), Antelope Valley APCD, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
(AQMD), Butte County AQMD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa County APCD, 
El Dorado County APCD, Feather River AQMD, Glenn County APCD, Great 
Basin Unified APCD, Imperial County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake County 
AQMD, Lassen County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Mendocino County APCD, 
Modoc County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, 
Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, San Diego County APCD, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Santa Barbara 
County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, South Coast 
AQMD, Tehama County APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, Ventura County APCD, 
and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

Direct Final Rule

    We are publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal 
because we view this as noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rule section of this Federal 
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the 
proposal in the event that adverse comments are filed.
    If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Docket

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0047. 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 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 Air Docket in the 
EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.

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/. 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 
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. Although not all docket 
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of 
the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility 
identified in this document. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

World Wide Web (WWW)

    After signature, the final rule will be posted on the policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or final rules of EPA's Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5.html. For 
more information, call the TTN Help line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

    The contents of the preamble are listed in the following outline:

I. Background
II. Revisions to the Fee Payment Requirements
III. Direct Final Rule
IV. Administrative Requirements
    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: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
    K. Judicial Review

I. Background

    Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires all State permitting 
authorities to develop operating permits programs that meet certain 
Federal criteria codified at 40 CFR part 70. Pursuant to title V, EPA 
promulgated final regulations at 40 CFR part 71 to establish EPA's 
program for issuing Federal operating permits to sources located in 
areas lacking an EPA-approved or adequately administered operating 
permits program. See 61 FR 34202 (July 1, 1996).
    On November 30, 2001, we promulgated final full approval of 34 
California districts' title V operating permits programs. See 66 FR 
63503 (December 7, 2001).\1\ Our final rulemaking was challenged by 
several environmental and community groups alleging that the full 
approval was unlawful based, in part, on an exemption in section 
42310(e) of the California Health and Safety Code which precluded local 
districts from requiring title V permits for major agricultural 
sources. EPA entered into a settlement of this litigation which 
required, in part, that the Agency propose to partially withdraw 
approval of the 34 fully approved title V programs in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Antelope Valley APCD was not included in our final action 
because its initial interim approval status, granted on December 19, 
2000(65 FR 79314), had not yet expired. On January 21, 2003, 
however, Antelope Valley's interim approval status expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We partially withdrew approval of the title V programs for the 34 
local air districts listed above and began administering the part 71 
program for the State-exempt agricultural sources (herein also referred 
to as ``agricultural sources'') located in the 34 local air districts 
on November 14, 2002.\2\ See 67 FR 63551 (October 15, 2002). Consistent 
with the settlement agreement and our final rule for these 34 
districts, State-

[[Page 25509]]

exempt major agricultural sources subject to the part 71 program due to 
diesel engine emissions must submit their permit applications by May 
14, 2003, while all other major stationary agricultural sources must 
submit part 71 applications to EPA no later than August 1, 2003. On 
January 21, 2003, EPA began implementation of the part 71 program for 
major stationary sources in the Antelope Valley APCD as a result of the 
expiration of the program's interim approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``State-exempt agricultural source'' refers to those 
stationary agricultural sources in California that are presently 
exempt from all air permitting requirements under California Health 
and Safety Code 42310(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Revisions to the Fee Payment Requirements

    Part 71 requires that permit applicants submit permit fees with 
their applications in order for the application to be deemed complete. 
See Sec.  71.5(a)(2). If a source fails to submit a timely and complete 
application, it may be subject to an enforcement action for operating 
without a permit. See Sec.  71.7(b). Also, a source that fails to 
submit fees within 30 days of the due date is subject to a 50 percent 
penalty. See Sec.  71.9(l)(2).
    We are deferring the fee payment due date for State-exempt 
agricultural sources in California that are subject to the part 71 
program because we believe the standard part 71 fee may significantly 
exceed the actual cost of administering a program for agricultural 
sources, and we do not have the information to complete a rulemaking to 
establish a different fee prior to the May 14, 2003, application 
deadline. The part 71 fee schedule in Sec.  71.9(c) is designed to 
cover the cost of permitting more complex, industrial sources. We need 
additional time to evaluate the likely costs of permitting the State-
exempt agricultural sources. Also, as we gain experience with the 
program, we will be in a better position to establish a cost-based fee. 
For these reasons, we are amending Sec.  71.9(f) to extend the due date 
for permit fees for State-exempt agricultural sources until May 14, 
2004. Unless we set a different fee amount through rulemaking before 
that extended date, the fee schedule in Sec.  71.9(c)(1) would apply.
    At this time the Agency has no experience with or data on the cost 
of permitting agricultural sources, but we expect that agricultural 
sources will have fewer applicable requirements and associated 
monitoring requirements, and they will require simpler permits than do 
most industrial sources. One key difference, for example, is that no 
State-exempt agricultural source has been issued a permit to construct 
emission sources associated with its agricultural operation, whereas 
most, if not all, nonagricultural major stationary sources of air 
pollution in the State have been issued preconstruction permits. 
Requirements and conditions in preconstruction permits are applicable 
requirements that must be folded into a title V permit. In addition, 
State implementation plan-approved stationary source prohibitory rule 
requirements are mostly directed at nonagricultural operations. 
Similarly, few, if any, State-exempt agricultural sources would be 
subject to maximum achievable control technology standards. For an 
example of the type and complexity of nonagricultural title V permits, 
please see certain district permits posted on the California Air 
Resources Board webpage at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/permits/permits.htm.
    Based on this difference in the number of applicable requirements, 
we believe that at every stage of the permit process, permitting 
agricultural sources will on average be less complex and time consuming 
than permitting industrial sources. For agricultural sources, the 
technical review of the application will be less time consuming because 
it will be easier to determine if all the applicable requirements are 
referenced in the application. Similarly, it will be easier to 
determine whether the source is in compliance with all of its 
applicable requirements and whether a compliance schedule needs to be 
developed in the permit. Permits that have fewer applicable 
requirements will require less time to develop with respect to 
monitoring issues which typically involves a review of the monitoring 
proposed by the permit applicant for each applicable requirement and a 
justification in the permit's statement of basis for the monitoring 
required in the permit. There will be fewer recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements tied to applicable requirements to include in the permits. 
Finally, because there are fewer applicable requirements and reports 
required by the permit, these permits should be easier for EPA to 
implement and enforce compared to the typical industrial source permit.
    EPA also expects to develop some general permits for some State-
exempt agricultural sources which would be less resource intensive to 
develop and implement than permits that are issued on a case-by-case 
basis. Although EPA has not issued any general permits, we estimate 
that it takes on average 328 hours to develop and issue an individual 
permit and 80 hours to develop and issue a general permit that would 
apply to many sources. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 
Operating Permit Regulations, EPA Number 1587.05. One reason for the 
difference in the estimates is that general permits are only 
appropriate for less complex sources with few applicable requirements.
    Once a general permit is developed, EPA would not make individual 
judgements relative to the permit terms for the sources covered by the 
permit. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 
the general permit would not vary from source to source. Once the 
general permit has been issued after an opportunity for public 
participation and affected State review, EPA may grant or deny a 
source's request to be covered by a general permit without further 
public participation or affected State review. Thus, EPA would bear the 
cost of one public hearing at most on the permit, as opposed to the 
individual public hearings that can be requested for permits that are 
developed individually.
    Once we have determined where it is appropriate to develop general 
permits, we will be in a position to add those costs to other data on 
the cost of implementing the program for agricultural sources.
    In order to implement the later fee payment due date, we are also 
amending Sec.  71.9(f) to remove the requirement that fees be paid at 
the time of the permit application in order for the applications from 
State-exempt agricultural sources to be considered complete.
    Absent these amendments, State-exempt agricultural sources would 
have been required to pay fees that may substantially exceed the cost 
of administering the part 71 program or become subject to enforcement 
actions for operating without a title V permit and for failure to pay 
fees.

III. Direct Final Rule

    EPA believes this direct final rule is necessary because the 
standard part 71 fee that is based on costs of permitting industrial 
sources may substantially exceed the cost of permitting the simpler 
agricultural sources, and many of these sources must submit 
applications and fees by May 14, 2003. Even with a direct final 
rulemaking, this rule will not be effective by the date permit 
applications are due for certain agricultural sources. Thus, 
applications submitted on May 14, 2003, without a payment of fees will 
be temporarily incomplete while this rulemaking is conducted. Once this 
rulemaking is completed and effective, however, applications otherwise 
meeting the requirements of part 71 that are submitted without fees can 
be deemed complete without further action by the applicant.

[[Page 25510]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a 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 a ``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, 
adversely affecting in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety in 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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs of 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.
    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that this direct 
final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it simply 
defers, rather than imposes, one regulatory requirement and raises no 
novel legal or policy issues. Therefore, this action is not subject to 
OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This direct final rule does not impose any new information 
collection burden. The action merely defers the fee payment deadline 
for certain agricultural sources that are subject to the action. 
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR part 71, 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0336 (EPA ICR No. 
1713.04). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by person 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that 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 rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business that meets 
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses 
found in 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, country, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is a not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities since the primary 
purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and 
address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The 
amendments in today's final rule would merely defer the deadline for 
paying permit fees for sources affected by the final rule, thereby 
giving them more flexibility and reducing the burden on these sources. 
We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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, 2 
U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including 
a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year.
    Before promulgating a 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 where 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, EPA 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 our regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of title II of the UMRA)for State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector. Today's direct final rule imposes 
no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments and 
merely defers the payment of permit fees for certain permit applicants. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. Thus, 
today's action is not

[[Page 25511]]

subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, EPA has determined that this direct final contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because it imposes no new requirements and imposes no 
additional obligations beyond those of existing regulations. Therefore, 
today's direct final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of the UMRA.

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, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This direct 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. Today's rule will 
not impose any new requirements but rather will defer payment of fees 
for certain permit applicants. Accordingly, it will not alter the 
overall relationship or distribution of powers between governments for 
part 71 operating permits programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this direct final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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 direct final rule 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 in Executive Order 
13175. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. As discussed above, today's 
action imposes no new requirements and merely defers fee payment for 
certain permit applicants. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that the EPA determines is (1) ``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.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risk such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This direct final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not ``economically 
significant'' under Executive Order 12866, and it does not establish an 
environmental standard intended to mitigate health and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This direct final 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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards 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 voluntary consensus bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    The NTTAA does not apply to this direct final rule because it does 
not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the 
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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 United States Senate, the United States 
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 direct final rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on June 27, 
2003 unless significant adverse comments are received by June 12, 2003.

K. 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 July 14, 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 71

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 25512]]


    Dated: May 7, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 71.9 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  71.9  Permit fees.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) Notwithstanding the above and Sec.  71.5(a)(2), initial fee 
payments for sources that are subject to the part 71 program for State-
exempt agricultural sources in California local air districts are due 
on May 14, 2004. Before May 14, 2004, initial applications from these 
sources that are timely and otherwise complete shall not be deemed 
incomplete due to the fact that fees are not submitted with the 
applications.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-11910 Filed 5-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U