Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 69139

any element of the Postal Service 

employee’s established checkout and 

withdrawal process for any meter, 

unless approval for the change in 

procedures is granted in writing by the 

Postal Service. 

(h) Handle faulty meters, including 

those that are inoperable, those that are 

misregistering or the registers are 

unreadable, those that inaccurately 

reflect their current status, those that 

show any evidence of tampering or 

abuse, and those for which there is 

information or other indication that the 

meter has some mechanical or electrical 

malfunction of any critical security 

component, such as any component the 

improper operation of which could 

adversely affect Postal Service revenues, 

or of any memory component, or that 

affects the accuracy of the registers or 

the accuracy of the value printed, as 

follows: 

(1) Ensure that all functions required 

to handle faulty meters are completed in 

a timely manner and in accordance with 

Postal Service regulations and 

procedures. 

(2) Begin the process to retrieve any 

faulty meter within 2 business days of 

being notified of a problem. 

(3) Complete PS Form 3601–C, 

Postage Meter Activity Report, in the 

presence of the licensee and obtain the 

licensee’s signature on the form 

confirming that the information is 

accurate.

(i) Include the register information on 

the form when the registers can be read. 

(ii) Print the system report, if 

available for the meter, and attach the 

report to PS Form 3601–C when the 

register values cannot be read. 

(iii)Have the licensee provide any 

original daily usage logs with PS Form 

3601–C for refund calculation when the 

register values cannot be read. 

(4) Identify and tag the meter as faulty 

as soon as the manufacturer or the 

manufacturer’s agent receives it from 

the customer. Keep the identification tag 

and the PS Form 3601–C, which was 

completed under paragraph (h)(3) of this 

section, with the faulty meter until 

processing is completed and the meter 

is returned to service or is scrapped. 

(5) Secure all faulty meters and 

maintain the integrity of the meter and 

of the information residing on the meter. 

Maintain control of the meter until 

processing is completed. 

(6) Ensure that under no circumstance 

are registers on a faulty meter cleared or 

any funds refunded or transferred until 

examination and processing are 

completed, the Postal Service has 

reviewed and analyzed the 

manufacturer’s report and determined 

the appropriate postage adjustment, if 

any, and approved refund procedures 

are followed. 

(7) Maintain a record of the faulty 

meter and all changes in its custody, 

state, and condition (including 

availability of register information) from 

the time the meter is reported as faulty 

until processing is completed under 

paragraphs (h)(9), (12), or (14) of this 

section. Make the record available to the 

Postal Service for its review upon 

request. 

(8) Examine each meter withdrawn for 

faulty operation as soon it is received 

from the customer to determine if the 

registers can be read and if there is any 

evidence of tampering. 

(9) When the registers can be read or 

a summary report of the appropriate 

redundant electronic register memory 

readouts is available using Postal 

Service-approved methods, and there is 

no evidence of tampering or any 

problem covered by paragraph (h)(13) of 

this section: 

(i) Check out the meter and withdraw 

it from service under paragraph (g) of 

this section. 

(ii) Submit a report to the Postal 

Service by the 15th of each month 

listing all faulty meters with readable 

displays and no other problems received 

in the prior month, identifying the 

meter and including an explanation of 

the meter malfunction. 

(10) Maintain a dedicated, secure 

facility, approved by the Postal Service, 

for handling faulty meters that cannot 

be handled under paragraph (h)(9) of 

this section. 

(11) Ship faulty meters not handled 

under paragraph (h)(9) of this section 

directly to the secure facility described 

in paragraph (h)(10) of this section for 

processing. Ship these faulty meters via 

Registered Mail service, Express Mail 

service, or Priority Mail service with 

Delivery Confirmation service. 

(12) If there is no evidence of 

tampering, if the meter registers cannot 

be read, and if a summary report of the 

appropriate redundant electronic 

register memory readouts cannot be 

retrieved: 

(i) Develop other data to support the 

request for Postal Service approval of a 

postage adjustment amount, such as a 

manual calculation of the estimated 

value of the descending register based 

on estimated highest average daily 

usage, or applicable system-generated 

register documentation. Include the 

original daily usage logs maintained by 

the customer, if any, with the 

supporting data. 

(ii) Furnish a report explaining the 

malfunction to the Postal Service within 

7 days of receiving the meter. 

Accompany the report with a 

recommendation of the postage 

adjustment amount that includes all 

data developed to support the 

recommendation. 

(iii) Maintain control of those meters 

that have unreadable registers and hold 

them in the manufacturer’s dedicated, 

secure facility described in paragraph 

(h)(10) of this section until a 

representative of the Postal Service 

approves the postage adjustment 

amount or verifies the condition of the 

meter before proceeding with the meter 

repair or destruction. 

(13) In some instances, even though 

the registers can be read, there is 

information or other indication that the 

meter has some mechanical or electrical 

malfunction that affects the accuracy of 

the registers or the accuracy of the value 

printed. Handle such meters under 

paragraph (h)(12) of this section. 

(14) If there is evidence or suspicion 

of tampering: 

(i) Ensure that the meter is handled in 

a secure manner and maintained in its 

original state until the Postal Service or 

its agent can be present during the 

examination. 

(ii) After examination, if approved by 

the Postal Service or its agent, process 

the meter under paragraph (h)(12) of 

this section. 

(15) Issue the refund of any postage 

value said to remain in a faulty meter, 

after Postal Service approval of the 

amount of the refund, when the Postal 

Service requires it. Request 

reimbursement from the Postal Service 

for these refunds by periodically 

submitting a reimbursement request 

letter to the Postal Service. Accompany 

the letter with listings and support 

documentation for each refund and 

indicate the cause of failure for each 

incident.

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 02–28937 Filed 11–14–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA–079–SIPS; FRL–7408–5] 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

Progress, Attainment, and 

Maintenance State Implementation 

Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, 

and Nitrogen Dioxide; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

69140 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

1The adequacy process is explained at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5), and in a May 14, 1999 memo 

from Gay MacGregor, Director, Regional and State 

Programs Division, Office of Mobile Sources, 

entitled, ‘‘Conformity Guidance on Implementation 

of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision.’’

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

limit the duration of our approvals of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(‘‘budgets’’) in certain existing 

California state implementation plans 

(SIPs) that provide for progress, 

attainment, and maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone, 8-hour carbon monoxide 

(CO), and annual nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Specifically, we are 

limiting our approvals of the existing 

budgets to last only until the effective 

date of our adequacy finding for new 

budgets that replace the existing 

approved budgets for the same 

pollutant, Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirement, and year. The State of 

California will submit new budgets as 

part of comprehensive revisions to 

certain approved progress, attainment, 

and maintenance plans that reflect 

updated information and a new version 

of California’s motor vehicle emission 

factor model. On the effective date of 

EPA’s adequacy finding for a new 

budget, our approval of the existing 

budget would terminate and thus the 

new adequate budget would apply 

instead of the existing budget for 

transportation conformity purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on 

December 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the docket for this action at EPA’s 

Region 9 office during normal business 

hours. You can inspect copies of the SIP 

materials at the following locations:

U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, EPA Region 9, (415) 972–

3957, or Jesson.David@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46618), we 

proposed to limit the duration of our 

prior approvals of existing motor 

vehicle emissions budgets associated 

with the SIPs for the areas listed below 

in Table 1—California SIPs Whose 

Budget Approvals Are Being Modified. 

Under this modification, the existing 

budgets will be approved and apply for 

transportation conformity purposes only 

until we have found the new budgets 

that California submits to be adequate. 

The proposed action provides 

background information on the 

California SIPs, the State’s request, the 

federal rule (40 CFR part 93) and current 

policies to implement the transportation 

conformity provisions of CAA section 

176(c), and our process for determining 

adequacy of motor vehicle emission 

budgets.1

TABLE 1.—CALIFORNIA SIPS WHOSE BUDGET APPROVALS ARE BEING MODIFIED

Area Pollutant Plan Adoption Submittal FR approval 

Antelope Valley (SE 

Desert).

Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 9/9/94 

12/9/94 

4/12/96 

11/15/94 

12/29/94 

7/10/96 

1/8/97, 62 FR 1150. 

Bakersfield ........................ CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Chico ................................. CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Coachella (SE Desert) ...... Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 9/9/94 

12/9/94 

12/29/94 

11/15/94 

12/29/94 

7/10/96 

1/8/97, 62 FR 1150. 

Fresno ............................... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Kern (SE Desert) .............. Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 12/1/94 1/28/94 1/8/97, 62 FR 1150.

Lake Tahoe—North ........... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Lake Tahoe—South .......... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Modesto ............................ CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Mojave (SE Desert) .......... Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 10/26/94 11/15/94 1/8/97, 62 FR 1150. 

Monterey ........................... Ozone ............... Maintenance Plan ....................... 5/25/94 

10/19/94

7/14/94 

11/14/94

1/17/97, 62 FR 2597. 

Sacramento ....................... Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 12/1/94 

12/12/94 

12/13/94 

12/14/94 

12/20/94 

12/29/94 1/8/97, 62 FR 1150. 

Sacramento ....................... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

San Diego ......................... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

San Francisco Bay Area ... CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

South Coast ...................... Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 11/15/96 

12/10/99

2/5/97 

2/4/00 

4/10/00, 65 FR 18903. 

South Coast ...................... NO2 ................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 11/15/96 2/5/97 7/24/98, 63 FR 39747. 

Stockton ............................ CO .................... Maintenance Plan ....................... 4/26/96 7/3/96 3/31/98, 63 FR 15305. 

Ventura .............................. Ozone ............... Attainment Plan ........................... 11/8/94 

12/19/95 

11/15/94 

7/12/96 

1/8/97, 62 FR 1150. 

Note: The Attainment plans typically also address CAA provisions relating to progress. 

Our proposed action was requested by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) because the State is in the 

process of making comprehensive 

updates and enhancements to most of 

its air quality plans and budgets, which 

will include much more accurate motor 

vehicle emission information than 

existing SIPs. California wishes to 

replace the existing approved budgets as 

soon as possible so that the new budgets 

can be used in conformity. Normally, 

new budgets that replace existing 

budgets in approved plans cannot be 

used until the corresponding plans have

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 69141

been fully approved as part of the SIP. 

However, if approval of the existing 

budgets expires when we determine that 

the new budgets are adequate (as we 

proposed), the superior new budgets can 

be then employed in transportation 

conformity determinations within a few 

months of their submission, rather than 

only when the SIP is finally approved, 

which could take as long as 18 months.

In a June 14, 2002, letter from Mike 

Kenny, CARB Executive Officer, to 

Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional 

Administrator, CARB states that the new 

plan revisions will benefit air quality 

and strengthen the SIPs by 

incorporating: New federally 

enforceable commitments and control 

measures; new and updated data that 

reflect the various emission control 

rules adopted since the old SIPs were 

developed; recent vehicle test data for 

cars and trucks to better represent realworld emissions; and updated vehicle 

registration data and activity data. The 

CARB letter concludes: ‘‘Without the 

ability to replace existing budgets with 

submitted ones using the budget 

adequacy process, the benefits of using 

the updated data from the stronger, 

more effective SIPs would not be 

realized for a year or more after the SIPs 

are submitted, due to the SIP approval 

process.’’ In response, we proposed to 

modify our approvals of the California 

SIPs in light of the age of the motor 

vehicle data in the existing SIPs and the 

improvements to be included in the new 

SIPs. 

Today’s final action is not intended to 

modify the generally applicable rules 

regarding when submitted budgets 

become effective for the purposes of 

transportation conformity. Rather, 

today’s action sets forth a means to 

accommodate the State’s request to 

allow for the prompt use of new more 

accurate budgets in California within 

the bounds of existing regulatory and 

statutory requirements. 

II. Public Comments 

We received three comments: one 

letter of support, one letter requesting 

clarification, and one letter opposing the 

proposed action. We summarize and 

respond to the comments below. 

A. Comments From Georgia 

A letter of support was submitted 

jointly by the Environmental Protection 

Division of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, the Georgia Regional 

Transportation Authority, and the 

Atlanta Regional Commission. These 

agencies supported the flexibility being 

proposed for California and encouraged 

its wide application for other 

nonattainment and maintenance areas: 

The Agencies are in complete support 

of the proposed EPA action, in 

California and elsewhere, as it will 

eliminate the lengthy SIP approval 

process currently needed to replace 

existing SIP budgets, and will enable a 

quicker, smoother transition to motor 

vehicle emissions budgets which more 

accurately reflect current conditionswith the ultimate end being improved 

alignment between mobile source 

emission estimates used in both the SIP 

and the transportation plan and 

program. By reducing the potential 

delay experienced before new budgets 

may be utilized and by reducing the 

associated risk to the transportation 

planning process, we believe that this 

rulemaking also provides an incentive 

for nonattainment and maintenance 

areas to revisit their approved budgets 

more frequently. This would improve 

the air quality planning process, and 

ultimately air quality, by causing newer 

and better planning assumptions to be 

incorporated into SIPs more often. 

Therefore, we encourage EPA to provide 

the flexibility contained in this 

rulemaking throughout the country, 

especially in those areas, such as 

Atlanta, where there is an active and 

effective interagency consultation 

process. 

Response: We appreciate the support 

of the Environmental Protection 

Division of the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, the Georgia Regional 

Transportation Authority, and the 

Atlanta Regional Commission for this 

action on SIPs in California. In response 

to their request that we extend this 

flexibility to all nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, we can only do so 

under certain specific circumstances. 

First, a state must acknowledge that its 

currently approved budgets have 

become outdated or are deficient. 

Second, the state must make a 

commitment to update these budgets as 

part of a comprehensive update of its 

SIP. Third, a state must request that EPA 

limit the duration of the approval of the 

state’s current approved SIPs. If a state 

meets all of these criteria, it would be 

appropriate to allow that state also to 

take advantage of this flexibility. 

California has committed to undertake 

comprehensive updates of nearly two 

dozen attainment demonstrations and/

or maintenance plans. Many of these 

plans have not been updated in the last 

eight years. In that time much has been 

learned about motor vehicle emissions 

and many planning assumptions have 

been updated. As discussed above, 

California has sent a letter to EPA 

formally requesting that we limit the 

duration of the State’s currently 

approved SIPs. Therefore, California has 

fulfilled the criteria necessary to receive 

this flexibility and we believe it is now 

appropriate to limit our prior SIP 

approvals and allow new budgets that 

come from these revised SIPs and reflect 

much better information to be used for 

conformity after they are found 

adequate.

B. Comments From Miwok Indians 

The following comments were 

submitted on behalf of the Shingle 

Springs Band of Miwok Indians 

(‘‘Tribe’’). 

1. EPA should clarify that projects 

from federally approved transportation 

plans may continue if new budgets 

apply.

Response: In general, the 

establishment of new applicable budgets 

would not affect projects incorporated 

in approved regional transportation 

plans (RTPs) and transportation 

improvement plans (TIPs). A conformity 

determination remains valid even if we 

later, upon further analysis, find new 

budgets applicable. The fact that new 

information became available that 

changed the applicable budgets does not 

affect a prior conformity determination; 

a subsequent conformity determination 

would take the new information into 

account. However, whether or not a new 

budget applies, a project carried forward 

into a new RTP or TIP must be 

analyzed, together with all other 

federally supported highway and transit 

activities, to demonstrate that the RTP 

or TIP as a whole is consistent with the 

SIP, using the latest planning 

assumptions, the approved motor 

vehicle emissions factor model, and the 

currently applicable budgets. Also, 

regardless of which budget applies, the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) may elect not to include any 

project in the next RTP or TIP for the 

area. 

2. EPA failed to include proposed 

regulatory language in the proposal.

Response: We are not obligated to 

issue rule language in a proposed 

rulemaking, and generally do not do so 

in actions on State plans. We believe 

that the proposed rulemaking was clear 

in expressing our intended action. 

C. Comments From Marc Chytilo 

Marc Chytilo submitted comments on 

behalf of Transportation Solutions 

Defense and Education Fund, 

Communities for a Better Environment, 

Our Children’s Earth Foundation, 

Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Latino Issues 

Forum, and Urban Habitat. Mr. Chytilo 

objected to the proposal for several 

reasons, which are summarized and 

discussed below.

69142 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

1. EPA’s rulemaking record must 

disclose that ARB’s proposed action is 

being undertaken to avoid statewide 

conformity issues by replacing the 

emissions budgets used to demonstrate 

attainment in currently approved SIPs 

with enlarged emissions budgets that 

have no demonstrated relationship to 

attainment of the NAAQS. ARB has 

apparently not clearly committed to 

review the adequacy of prior attainment 

demonstrations, or submit new 

demonstrations, as part of its current 

plan to develop revised MVEBs using 

current estimates of motor vehicle 

emissions.

Response: The purpose of our action 

is to expedite use of new budgets based 

on updated planning data and models, 

and consistent with comprehensive new 

progress, attainment, and maintenance 

plans. We expect that the new budgets 

would have a demonstrated relationship 

to attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS, and we would not find the 

new budgets adequate if that were not 

the case. We can find the budgets 

adequate only if the plans meet all the 

criteria in § 93.118(e)(4), as discussed 

below in response to comment 3. In fact, 

we expect that the use of updated 

information on motor vehicle emissions, 

emissions of other pollutant categories, 

air quality data, and air quality 

assessments in revised plans should 

strengthen the relationship of the 

budgets to the demonstrations of 

attainment and maintenance in each 

affected area. 

2. The proposed action is inconsistent 

with the statute, judicial interpretations, 

and EPA’s previous interpretations. a. 

CAA section 176(c) requires conformity 

using the EPA approved or promulgated 

implementation plan.

Response: Our proposal to terminate 

the approval of existing budgets in 

certain California SIPs at the time of an 

adequacy finding for new budgets does 

not conflict with judicial interpretations 

or CAA section 176(c). As discussed 

below, our transportation conformity 

regulations do allow for submitted 

budgets to apply following our 

determination of adequacy but before 

SIP approval, under circumstances 

detailed in 40 CFR 93.118(e). Although 

the court in Environmental Defense 

Fund v. EPA et al., 167 F.3d 641 (D.C. 

Cir. 1999) remanded 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(1), the offending provision 

was an automatic assumption of 

adequacy 45 days after the SIP was 

submitted, unless before that date we 

determined that the budgets were 

inadequate. The court did not remand 

the other regulatory provisions relating 

to use of adequate budgets, and our 

proposal is entirely consistent with the 

our current regulations. In addition, the 

fourth circuit also recently found it 

appropriate to use submitted budgets 

that had been found adequate where no 

prior approved budget was in place. See

1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 

265 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001).

Our proposal provides a mechanism 

for enhancing compliance with the CAA 

section 176(c)(1) requirement that ‘‘[t]he 

determination of conformity shall be 

based on the most recent estimates of 

emissions. * * *’’ Absent our proposed 

mechanism, transportation conformity 

determinations in these areas of 

California would need to be based on 

budgets and air quality plans that may 

have been prepared more than eight 

years ago until we complete 

comprehensive review of the air quality 

plans, propose rulemaking, and issue 

final approval of the budgets and plans. 

This period may take as much as 18 

months from the date on which the 

plans and budgets were submitted. 

Under our proposed mechanism, 

transportation planning organizations 

must use new budgets that are based 

upon updated air quality plans using 

the most recent emissions estimates, as 

soon as we find these budgets to be 

adequate under the provisions of 40 

CFR 93.118, a process that is generally 

completed within approximately 90 

days from the submittal date. 

b. EPA’s conformity regulations (40 

CFR 93.118(e)) provide that submitted 

SIPs do not supersede budgets in 

approved SIPs for the period of years 

addressed by the approved 

implementation plan.

Response: As mentioned, our 

proposal to terminate the approval of 

existing budgets in certain SIPs at the 

time of an adequacy finding for new 

budgets does not change our 

transportation conformity regulations, 

which allow for use of a budget prior to 

SIP approval in cases where there is no 

budget approved in the SIP for the same 

year and CAA requirement (40 CFR 

93.118(e)). By terminating our approval 

of the existing budgets on the date that 

we find new, revised budgets to be 

adequate, we eliminate the old budgets 

from the approved SIP and thus allow 

the new budgets to apply under the 

conformity rules for purposes of 

transportation conformity. In this 

manner, our proposed action provides 

an option, within the framework of our 

existing regulations, for accelerating the 

air quality and transportation benefits of 

basing transportation plans and 

conformity determinations on 

California’s new and improved plans 

and budgets, in lieu of the outdated SIPs 

and budgets that were developed and 

adopted, in many cases, eight years ago. 

Before the revised budgets may go 

into effect, however, we must first 

review both the budgets and the air 

quality plans and make a finding that 

these updated budgets are adequate. Our 

finding must follow the procedures and 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118 (e)(4) and (5), 

and the guidance contained in the EPA 

Guidance Memorandum from Gay 

MacGregor to Regional Air Directors 

entitled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on the 

Implementation of the March 2, 1999 

Conformity Court Decision’’ (May 14, 

1999). Therefore, our proposed 

mechanism for allowing use of these 

new budgets complies with the 40 CFR 

93.118(e) provisions in our 

transportation conformity regulations, 

and our findings on the adequacy of the 

budgets in the submittals will comply 

with all applicable provisions of the 

regulations. 

3. EPA may attempt to find budgets 

adequate based on incomplete and/or 

patently inadequate SIPs, creating great 

uncertainty in air quality and 

transportation planning processes while 

compromising air quality and public 

health.

Response: We will follow the 

statutory criteria and the regulatory 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) 

for finding submitted budgets adequate. 

Among other mandated findings, we 

must analyze the budget and air quality 

plan and determine that the following 

provisions of 93.118(e)(4) have been 

met: 

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, is 

consistent with applicable requirements 

for reasonable further progress, 

attainment, or maintenance (whichever 

is relevant to the given implementation 

plan submission); 

(v) The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) is consistent with and clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 

the control measures in the submitted 

control strategy implementation plan 

revision or maintenance plan; and 

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy implementation plans 

or maintenance plans explain and 

document any changes to previously 

submitted budgets and control 

measures; impacts on point and area 

source emissions; any changes to 

established safety margins * * *; and 

reasons for the changes (including the 

basis for any changes related to 

emission factors or estimates of vehicle 

miles traveled). 

If the SIPs are incomplete or 

inadequate or otherwise fail to meet 

applicable requirements in our 

transportation conformity regulations, 

we will not determine the new budgets

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 69143

adequate, and the existing budgets will 

continue to apply. Additionally, the 

public will have the opportunity to 

comment on both California’s proposed 

SIP revisions and on our adequacy 

findings. We will take all submitted 

comments into account when making 

adequacy determinations.

4. EPA previously rejected this 

interpretation in the 1997 conformity 

regulations: ‘‘Although EPA 

acknowledges that using updated 

budgets may be preferable, EPA does 

not believe that it is legal to allow a 

submitted SIP to supersede an approved 

SIP for years addressed by the approved 

SIP. As stated in the proposal, Section 

176(c) specifically requires conformity 

to be demonstrated to approved SIPs.’’

62 FR 43783.

Response: Again, our proposal would 

not amend the existing regulation, 

which provides that ‘‘submitted 

implementation plans do not supersede 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets in 

approved implementation plans for the 

period of years addressed by the 

approved implementation plan.’’ 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(1). California has 

requested that we approve its request to 

terminate the approval of the existing 

budgets when we find new budgets to 

be adequate, as a means of complying 

with the regulation while reducing the 

period of time before which the new 

budgets can be used for transportation 

planning purposes. There is nothing in 

the law or regulations that prohibits us 

from limiting the duration of a SIP 

approval if it is requested by the state. 

If our approval expires and there is no 

approved SIP with budgets for a given 

year and CAA purpose, then adequate 

budgets for that year and CAA purpose 

can apply for conformity. We agree with 

the State that, for the SIPs identified 

above in Table 1, the benefits of 

speeding the applicability of the new 

budgets are considerable. This is 

primarily because the existing California 

SIPs and budgets were developed, 

adopted, and approved many years ago, 

and new budgets and SIPs for these 

areas are expected to be based on 

comprehensively updated and enhanced 

information and control measures. We 

are taking this action because California 

has acknowledged the age of the 

information in the existing SIPs, has 

requested that we limit the duration of 

the approval, and has committed to 

submit new SIPs which include 

superior motor vehicle emissions data. 

We continue to agree with the State that 

in these cases it would provide an 

advantage to air quality and public 

health protection if the new budgets 

could be used once we find them to be 

adequate before comprehensive 

rulemaking on the new attainment, 

progress, and maintenance submittals 

can be completed. 

5. Budget adequacy can only be based 

on valid, modeled attainment 

demonstrations. Budgets must be 

demonstrated through modeling to be 

consistent with attainment, 

maintenance, and rate of progress.

Response: We expect that the new SIP 

submittals will document the 

consistency of the budgets and the 

attainment, maintenance, and rate of 

progress plan elements, as applicable, 

and we cannot find them adequate if 

they do not. However, while ambient 

modeling is required for most 

attainment plans, it is not mandatory for 

maintenance plans and it is not a 

relevant exercise for rate of progress 

plans, which address CAA-specified 

schedules of emission reductions from a 

SIP emissions baseline level. 

6. The proposed rulemaking is silent 

on the standards that EPA will employ 

in determining the adequacy of control 

strategies achieving emissions 

reductions necessary to accomplish 

attainment. The proposed strategy is 

unlawful to the extent that the State 

relies on enforceable commitments to 

submit later demonstrations that the 

NAAQS will be attained if higher 

estimates of motor vehicle emissions are 

allowed, and subsequent enforceable 

measures will be submitted to make up 

for excess emissions resulting from 

enlarged budgets. EPA’s reliance upon 

mere ‘‘enforceable commitments’’ to 

accomplish further emissions reductions 

necessary for attainment, maintenance 

or rate of progress is patently illegal.

Response: The standards we use to 

determine whether control strategies in 

a submitted SIP are approvable were not 

explicitly set forth in the proposal. As 

mentioned earlier, the standards for 

finding budgets adequate are found in 

the conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). Since areas can 

account for the air quality benefit of 

control measures not yet implemented 

but which are defined in a written 

commitment, it is appropriate to find a 

SIP adequate for conformity purposes 

even if it contains written commitments. 

The comment raises potential SIP 

approval issues, which could be 

germane to our future rulemaking on the 

new plan submittals. If the commenter 

believes that these approval issues arise 

at that time, we invite the commenter to 

submit comments specific to the 

submitted SIPs during the public 

comment periods associated with our 

rulemaking on the plans. In today’s 

action, we are simply limiting the time 

frame of prior approvals of budgets and 

are not approving any new plan 

submittals. 

7. EPA cannot rely on its failure to 

conform its regulations to the Court’s 

remand in EDF versus EPA as a basis for 

conducting a state-specific rulemaking 

that attempts to avoid the national 

rulemaking process required by 

Congress for promulgation of conformity 

regulations.

Response: The commenter indicates 

that we are taking this action to limit the 

approval of California’s SIPs because we 

have not yet revised the conformity 

regulation to reflect the court’s March 2, 

1999, decision on the EDF lawsuit. 

However, this action is not connected to 

the March 2, 1999, court decision. We 

are taking this action in response to a 

request from California to revise the 

approval of attainment demonstrations 

and maintenance plans within the State 

based upon the age of the information 

in those plans. We would have to act on 

this request whether or not we had 

revised the conformity regulation in 

response to the court’s March 2, 1999, 

decision. 

Our action to limit the approval of 

California’s SIPs does not make any 

change to the existing transportation 

conformity rule or to the way it is 

normally implemented with respect to 

other submitted and approved SIPs, but 

rather applies narrowly to the specific 

SIPs and circumstances as discussed 

above. Since we are not changing the 

federal conformity regulation we do not 

need a national rulemaking. We are 

acting appropriately in that we are 

taking a local action to amend the 

approval of attainment demonstrations 

and maintenance plans within one state 

at the request of that state. In any event, 

we are conducting rulemaking 

proceedings, are considering all 

submitted comments, and have 

coordinated with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation on this action.

We are approving California’s 

commitment to revise the currently 

approved budgets; therefore, we want 

our approval of the current budgets to 

last only until adequate revised budgets 

are submitted pursuant to the 

commitment. We believe the revised 

budgets should apply as soon as we find 

them adequate; we do not believe it is 

appropriate to wait until we have 

approved the revised attainment 

demonstrations and/or maintenance 

plans. This is because we know now 

that once we have confirmed that the 

revised budgets are adequate, they will 

be more appropriate than the originally 

approved budgets for conformity 

purposes. 

Specifically, once California has 

updated the currently approved SIPs to

69144 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

reflect all current control measures and 

the latest information on vehicle 

emissions, the appropriate motor 

vehicle emissions budgets should reflect 

those measures and vehicle emission 

information. Otherwise, the budget 

would not be the level of motor vehicle 

emissions that is consistent with the 

attainment demonstrations or 

maintenance plans. 

If we do not clarify our approval of 

the current budgets, California will 

revise the budgets as committed, but 

they would not be able to use them for 

conformity purposes until the SIPs were 

approved. This would defeat the 

purpose of California’s commitment for 

the budgets to be revised quickly to 

incorporate updated more accurate 

information. In contrast, according to 

today’s proposal, the revised budgets 

could be used for conformity after we 

have completed our adequacy review 

process, which we generally complete 

within 90 days after revisions are 

submitted, provided they are adequate. 

Today’s action is consistent with the 

court’s decision. The court held that 

budgets could not automatically become 

adequate after a certain period of time, 

but that we must make an affirmative 

finding on the adequacy of budgets after 

allowing the public the opportunity to 

comment. We will be making a finding 

of adequacy before the new submitted 

budgets are used. 

8. Enforceability issues are muddled. 

If revised control strategies are not fully 

consistent with strategies in the 

approved SIP, industry may be able to 

sue to enforce the approved SIPs’ less 

effective control measures until the 

effective date of EPA’s approval of 

revised SIPs. 

Response: We do not believe that this 

comment is relevant to our proposed 

rulemaking, which deals with the 

replacement of budgets, not control 

measures. In addition, we do not 

anticipate that this will be a problem 

since the control measures in the 

submitted SIPs would have to be 

enforceable at the State level prior to 

submission to EPA. 

9. Commenter is adversely affected by 

EPA’s action, which will permit the 

expenditure of federal transportation 

funds on projects that fail to reduce air 

pollution emissions and thus cause or 

contribute to unhealthful air quality. 

EPA’s action will promote single 

occupancy vehicle travel rather than 

creating viable alternative 

transportation systems.

Response: The commenter did not 

explain how our proposed action would 

promote single occupancy vehicle travel 

or fail to promote alternative 

transportation systems. Our proposed 

action does not permit the expenditure 

of federal transportation funds. We 

merely propose to terminate the 

approval of existing budgets for 

specified SIPs on the effective date of 

our adequacy finding, if any, on new 

budgets. Further, we cannot find any 

new budgets adequate unless they are 

consistent with attainment, progress, 

and maintenance of the air quality 

standards. Before federal transportation 

funds are awarded, the MPO must make 

a conformity determination on its long 

range plan and transportation 

improvement program. The public has 

the opportunity to comment on the 

content of the long range plan, 

transportation improvement program 

and conformity determination. The 

Federal Highway Administration and 

Federal Transit Administration must 

also determine the conformity of 

federally funded or approved highway 

and transit plans, programs, and 

projects to the applicable budget, based 

on the conformity determination 

prepared by the metropolitan planning 

organization for the area prior to 

awarding any federal funds.

10. The venue for any petition for 

review of the proposed action will lie in 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit pursuant to Section 307(b).

Response: We agree with this 

comment. 

11. Transportation plans, programs, 

and project approvals based on budgets 

that are subsequently determined to not 

be adequate as part of a judicial 

proceeding or SIP disapproval without a 

protective finding are subject to 

suspension, unless the project 

demonstrates a net air quality 

improvement or conformity exemption.

Response: We are not proposing any 

change in the transportation conformity 

regulations, which set out the 

consequences of SIP disapproval at 40 

CFR 93.120(a). However, under 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(3), conformity determinations 

made to adequate budgets are not 

disturbed by subsequent findings of 

inadequacy. 

12. Because the proposed action 

deviates from each area’s SIP relating to 

conformity criteria, procedures, and 

regulations, each area’s SIP will need to 

be revised to reflect the ad hoc 

exemption from the national conformity 

rules.

Response: The San Francisco Bay 

Area has approved SIP regulations for 

transportation conformity. The 

remaining responsible California air 

quality agencies for the areas listed in 

Table 1 do not have approved SIP rules 

addressing transportation conformity, 

but rather comply with the Federal 

transportation conformity regulations at 

40 CFR part 93, Subpart A. As 

mentioned above, we are not changing 

these Federal regulations in this action. 

We will ensure that the responsible 

California agencies, if they elect to 

adopt a revision to their attainment, 

progress, or maintenance SIPs and 

establish replacement budgets, do so 

through a process consistent with the 

applicable transportation conformity 

regulations, and that this process clearly 

identifies that one of the consequences 

of adopting and submitting a revised 

budget would be the termination of our 

approval of the existing budget if and 

when we find the replacement budget 

adequate. 

13. Commenter calls upon the State to 

aggressively develop statewide 

transportation control measures for the 

2003 SIPs, including the commuter 

choice program; state and federal tax 

incentives for parking cash out; 

promotion of regional transit systems; 

and smart growth.

Response: While we support the 

development of transportation control 

measures (TCMs) as components of 

SIPs, including such measures as the 

commenter advocates, we do not 

consider the comment germane to our 

action to limit approval of past SIPs, nor 

do we have a position with respect to 

the appropriateness of statewide TCMs 

as opposed to regional or local TCMs. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons stated above, and in 

the July 16, 2002, proposal, we are 

taking final action to limit the duration 

of our approvals of budgets in the 

existing SIPs identified in Table 1. In all 

other respects, the Table 1 SIPs will 

remain federally approved and 

enforceable unless and until we finalize 

approval of revised plans, and our 

limitations apply only to the extent that 

any new plans that we find adequate 

explicitly supersede the approved SIPs. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this regulatory action 

from Executive Order 12866, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 69145

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. 

C. Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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 

merely modifies certain previous SIP 

approval actions and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. The rule does not 

therefore 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.

D. Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘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.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications. 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

E. Executive Order 13211 

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. 

F. 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. 

This final rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because these 

modifications of SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements. Therefore, because the 

Federal modification of certain previous 

SIP approvals does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 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 costeffective 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 the 

modification of certain prior SIP 

approvals 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 

Federal action imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

H. 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. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to today’s action because it 

does not require the public to perform 

activities conducive to the use of VCS. 

I. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

69146 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 221 / Friday, November 15, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

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 rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as 

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

J. 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 January 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: November 5, 2002. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the CFR 

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 F—California

2. Section 52.244 is added to read as 

follows:

§ 52.244 Motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

(a) Approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the following 

ozone rate-of-progress and attainment 

SIPs will apply for transportation 

conformity purposes only until new 

budgets based on updated planning data 

and models have been submitted and 

EPA has found the budgets to be 

adequate for conformity purposes. 

(1) Antelope Valley, approved January 

8, 1997; 

(2) Coachella, approved January 8, 

1997; 

(3) Kern, approved January 8, 1997; 

(4) Mojave, approved January 8, 1997; 

(5) Sacramento, approved January 8, 

1997; 

(6) South Coast, approved April 10, 

2000; 

(7) Ventura, approved January 8, 

1997. 

(b) Approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the following 

ozone maintenance SIP will apply for 

transportation conformity purposes only 

until new budgets based on updated 

planning data and models have been 

submitted and EPA has found the 

budgets to be adequate for conformity 

purposes. 

(1) Monterey, approved January 17, 

1997. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(c) Approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the following 

carbon monoxide maintenance SIPs will 

apply for transportation conformity 

purposes only until new budgets based 

on updated planning data and models 

have been submitted and EPA has found 

the budgets to be adequate for 

conformity purposes. 

(1) Bakersfield, approved March 31, 

1998; 

(2) Chico, approved March 31, 1998; 

(3) Fresno, approved March 31, 1998; 

(4) Lake Tahoe-North, approved 

March 31, 1998; 

(5) Lake Tahoe-South, approved 

March 31, 1998; 

(6) Modesto, approved March 31, 

1998; 

(7) Sacramento, approved March 31, 

1998; 

(8) San Diego, approved March 31, 

1998; 

(9) San Francisco Bay Area, approved 

March 31, 1998; 

(10) Stockton, approved March 31, 

1998. 

(d) Approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the following 

nitrogen dioxide maintenance SIP will 

apply for transportation conformity 

purposes only until new budgets based 

on updated planning data and models 

have been submitted and EPA has found 

the budgets to be adequate for 

conformity purposes. 

(1) South Coast, approved on July 24, 

1998. 

(2) [Reserved].

[FR Doc. 02–28919 Filed 11–14–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405 and 419 

[CMS–1206–CN] 

RIN 0938–AL19 

Medicare Program; Changes to the 

Hospital Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System and Calendar Year 

2003 Payment Rates; and Changes to 

Payment Suspension for Unfiled Cost 

Reports; Correction

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Correction of final rule with 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

that appeared in the final rule with 

comment period published in the 

Federal Register on November 1, 2002 

entitled ‘‘Changes to the Hospital 

Outpatient Prospective Payment System 

and Calendar Year 2003 Payment Rates; 

and Changes to Payment Suspension for 

Unfiled Cost Reports.’’ This notice is a 

supplement to the November 1, 2002 

final rule with comment period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anita Heygster, (410) 786–0378.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 02–27548 of November 1, 

2002 (67 FR 66718), we omitted 

addresses and instructions for 

submitting public comments and 

language that justified waiving notice 

and comment procedures for two 

specific policies. This notice is a 

supplement to the November 1, 2002 

final rule with comment period, and 

sets forth our rationale for waiving the 

notice and comment period for certain 

provisions. More detail regarding this 

correction is provided in the Correction 

of Errors section below. The provisions 

in this correction notice are effective as 

if they had been included in the 

document published November 1, 2002. 

Accordingly, the corrections are 

effective January 1, 2003. 

II. Correction of Errors 

In FR Doc. 02–27548 of November 1, 

2002 (67 FR 66719), make the following 

corrections: 

1. On page 66718, at the top of the 

second column, immediately preceding 

the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, insert the following language: 

‘‘ADDRESSES: In commenting, please 

refer to file code CMS–1206–FC.