77212 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

PM–10 Submittals for the Coachella 

area.’’

PROPOSED APPROVALS OF SOUTH COAST PM–10 SUBMITTTALS FOR THE VALLEY

CAA section Provision SIP submittal Plan citation 

172(c)(3) ........................................ Emission Inventories .................... 2002 Plan ..................................... 2002 Plan, Ch 3. 

110(a), 188(e), and 189(b)(1)(B) ... Control Measures ......................... 1994 Plan, 1996 Plan, 2002 Plan 1996 Plan, Ch. 4, 2002 Plan, Ch. 

4, Ch. 5. 

189(c) ............................................. Reasonable Further Progress ...... 2002 Plan ..................................... Appendix E–3, Table E–2. 

172(c)(9) ........................................ Contingency Measures ................. 2002 Plan ..................................... 2002 Plan, Ch. 4, Ch. 5. 

189(b)(1)(A) ................................... Attainment Demonstration ............ 2002 Plan ..................................... 2002 Plan, Ch. 6. 

176(c)(2)(A) .................................... Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 2002 Plan ..................................... 2002 Plan, Ch. 3 Appendix E 

2002 Table E–3.

188(e) ............................................. Attainment Date Extension ........... 2002 Plan ..................................... 2002 Plan, Ch. 8. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211,‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

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

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 6, 2002. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 02–31679 Filed 12–16–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CA–274–0371; FRL–7422–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; California—South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for attainment of 

the particulate matter (PM–10) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air 

Basin Area and to establish emissions 

budgets for purposes of transportation 

conformity. EPA is also proposing to 

grant the State’s request for an extension 

of the PM–10 attainment deadline to 

December 31, 2006. EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revisions under 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, 

SIPs for national primary and secondary 

ambient air quality standards, and plan 

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposal must be received by January 

16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Please mail comments to: 

Dave Jesson (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. The rulemaking docket for 

this notice is available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at EPA’s Region IX office. A 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77213

1The nonattainment area includes all of Orange 

County and the more populated portions of Los 

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

For a description of the boundaries of the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, see 40 CFR 

81.305.

2EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter 

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672), replacing standards 

for total suspended particulates with new standards 

applying only to particulate matter up to 10 

microns in diameter (PM–10). At that time, EPA 

established two PM–10 standards. The annual PM–

10 standard is attained when the expected annual 

arithmetic mean of the 24-hour samples averaged 

over a 3-year period does not exceed 50 micrograms 

per cubic meter (ug/m3). The 24-hour PM–10 

standard of 150 ug/m3 is attained if samples taken 

for 24-hour periods have no more than one 

expected exceedance per year, averaged over 3 

years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM–

10 standard, and slightly revised the 24-hour PM–

10 standard (62 FR 38651). In the same action, EPA 

also established two new standards for PM, both 

applying only to particulate matter up to 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM–2.5). 

This SIP submittal addresses the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 standards as originally promulgated. 

An opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., 

et al. v. USEPA, No. 97–1440 (May 14, 1999), 

among other things, vacated the new standards for 

PM–10 that were published on July 18, 1997 and 

became effective September 16, 1997. However, the 

PM–10 standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 were 

not an issue in this litigation, and the Court’s 

decision noes not affect the applicability of those 

standards in this area. Codification of those 

standards continues to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6.

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying parts of the docket. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I 

Street, Sacramento, California, 95812

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive 

Diamond Bar, California, 91765–0932

Most of the plan materials are also 

electronically available at: http://

www.aqmd.gov/aqmp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–

3957, or jesson.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background 

A. Summary 

B. PM–10 Problem in the South Coast 

C. CAA Provisions 

D. Designation and Classification 

E. Adoption and Submittal 

II. Evaluation of the SIP Submittals 

A. Emission Inventories 

B. Control Measures 

1. Applicable Requirements 

2. Description of Control Measures 

3. Proposed Action on Control Measures 

C. Contingency Measures 

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Milestones 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

F. Extension of the Attainment Deadline 

G. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

III. Summary of the Proposed Action 

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background 

A. Summary 

We are proposing to approve portions 

of the 1994 and 1997 plans, the 1998 

and 1999 plan amendments, and the 

2002 status report for the South Coast 

Air Basin (or ‘‘South Coast’’), as these 

SIP submittals pertain to PM–10, and to 

grant the State’s request that the 

attainment date for the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 NAAQS be extended 

from December 31, 2001, to December 

31, 2006.1 We are also proposing to 

approve emissions budgets for purposes 

of transportation conformity.

B. PM–10 Problem in the South Coast 

Air Basin

Although great progress has been 

made in reducing PM–10 

concentrations, the South Coast 

continues to violate both the 24-hour 

and annual PM–10 NAAQS, and the 

State must therefore submit measures 

and other provisions sufficient to make 

expeditious progress and attain the 

NAAQS.2 The South Coast PM–10 plans 

were prepared to meet applicable CAA 

provisions, including attainment of the 

PM–10 NAAQS throughout the basin. 

Preparation of these plans was 

particularly challenging because PM–10 

concentrations in the South Coast 

consist of both primary particulate (such 

as road dust and diesel soot, emitted 

directly into the atmosphere) and 

secondary particulate (particles formed 

through atmospheric chemical reactions 

from precursor gases, notably oxides of 

nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and 

ammonia), and the principal causes of 

PM–10 violations show a strong spatial 

variation within the South Coast.

The health effects from elevated PM–

10 concentrations include lung damage, 

increased respiratory disease, and 

premature death. Children, the elderly, 

and people suffering from heart and 

lung disease, such as asthma, are 

especially at risk. 

C. CAA Provisions 

Title I of the Federal CAA was 

substantially amended in 1990 to 

establish new planning requirements 

and attainment deadlines for the 

NAAQS. The nonattainment area plan 

provisions for PM–10 areas appear in 

CAA section 189. The most fundamental 

of these provisions is the requirement 

that the State submit a SIP 

demonstrating attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS. CAA section 189(a)(1)(B) and 

189(b)(1)(A). This demonstration must 

be based upon enforceable measures to 

achieve emission reductions leading to 

emissions at or below the level 

predicted to result in attainment of the 

NAAQS throughout the nonattainment 

area. For areas classified as serious, 

such as the South Coast, the measures 

must meet the standard for Best 

Available Control Measures (BACM), 

and the measures must be implemented 

expeditiously and ensure attainment no 

later than the applicable CAA deadline. 

Because the State requests an extension 

of the attainment date beyond the 

applicable deadline of December 31, 

2001, CAA section 188(e) provides that 

the State must demonstrate that the plan 

includes the most stringent measures 

(MSM) that are included in any 

implementation plan or are achieved in 

practice, and can feasibly be 

implemented in the area. 

EPA has issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing the Agency’s preliminary 

views on how EPA intends to act on 

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act. 

See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 57 FR 

18070 (April 28, 1992). EPA later issued 

an Addendum to the General Preamble 

providing guidance on SIP requirements 

for serious PM–10 areas. 59 FR 41998 

(August 16, 1994). The reader should 

refer to these documents for a more 

detailed discussion of EPA’s 

preliminary interpretations of Title I 

requirements. In this proposed 

rulemaking action, EPA applies these 

policies to the South Coast PM–10 SIP 

submittals, taking into consideration the 

specific factual issues presented. 

D. Designation and Classification 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments, PM–10 areas, 

including the South Coast Air Basin, 

meeting the qualifications of section 

107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act, were 

designated nonattainment by operation 

of law. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 

1991). 

Once an area is designated 

nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA 

outlines the process for classification of 

the area and establishes the area’s 

attainment date. In accordance with 

section 188(a), at the time of 

designation, all PM–10 nonattainment 

areas, including the South Coast Air 

Basin, were initially classified as 

moderate by operation of law. Section 

188(b)(1) of the Act further provides that 

moderate areas can subsequently be 

reclassified as serious before the 

applicable moderate area attainment 

date if at any time EPA determines that 

the area cannot ‘‘practicably’’ attain the 

PM–10 NAAQS by this attainment date. 

77214 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

3SCAQMD adopted and CARB submitted in 1991 

an AQMP intended, in part, to satisfy the CAA 

section 189(a) provisions for PM–10 nonattainment 

areas classified as moderate. We did not take action 

on this plan and are not doing so now, since the 

plan was superseded by the subsequent SIP 

submittals.

4We granted interim approval to the CO portion 

of the 1997 submittal on April 21, 1998 (63 FR 

19661), and we approved the NO2 portion of the 

1997 submittal on July 24, 1998 (63 FR 39747). On 

January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we approved the 

ozone portion of the 1994 submittal. On April 10, 

2000 (65 FR 18903), we approved the ozone portion 

of the 1997 submittal, as amended in December 

1999, as a replacement for the 1994 ozone plan.

5EPA has approved EMFAC 7G for use in 

transportation plan and program conformity 

analyses (letter from David Howekamp, EPA, to 

Michael P. Kenny, CARB, dated April 16, 1998).

EPA determined on January 8, 1993, 

that the South Coast could not 

practicably attain the PM–10 NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment deadline for 

moderate areas (December 31, 1994, per 

section 188(c)(1) of the Act), and 

reclassified the area as serious (58 FR 

3334). In accordance with section 

189(b)(2) of the Act, the applicable 

deadline for submittal of SIPs for the 

South Coast addressing the 

requirements for serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas in section 189(b) 

and (c) of the Act were: 

(1) August 8, 1994 (18 months after 

the effective date of the 

reclassification)—SIP to ensure the 

implementation of BACM no later than 

4 years after reclassification; 

(2) February 8, 1997 (4 years after the 

effective date of the reclassification)—

SIP to provide for progress and 

expeditious attainment.

The 1994 PM10 plan addresses the 

first requirement and the 1997 plan 

addresses the second requirement. 

E. Adoption and Submittal 

The South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) 

adopted the 1994 Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP) on 

September 9, 1994, and the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

the plan to us on November 15, 1994. 

This plan addresses the BACM 

provisions of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).3

The SCAQMD adopted the 1997 

AQMP on November 15, 1996, and 

CARB submitted the plan on February 5, 

1997. This plan addresses the remaining 

plan provisions for serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas, as specified in 

CAA sections 188 and 189. 

In addition to PM–10, these two 

AQMPs address carbon monoxide (CO), 

ozone, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).4 By 

operation of law pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(B), the PM–10 portions 

of the 1994 and 1997 plan submittals 

became complete 6 months after 

submittal by the State—i.e., on May 15, 

1995, and August 5, 1997, respectively.

On April 10, 1998, the SCAQMD 

adopted a 1998 amendment to the 1997 

plan, establishing 2010 and 2020 PM–10 

motor vehicle emission budgets. The 

State submitted these budgets to us as 

a SIP revision on April 22, 1998, and 

this submittal became complete by 

operation of law on October 22, 1998. 

On December 10, 1999, the SCAQMD 

adopted a 1999 amendment to the 1997 

plan, primarily addressing the ozone 

elements of the plan but also affecting 

some control measures relating to PM–

10. CARB submitted the 1999 

amendment on February 4, 2000. On 

March 15, 2000, we found that the 1999 

amendment met the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

On June 7, 2002, the SCAQMD 

adopted and on November 18, 2002, 

CARB submitted a status report, 

including motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for purposes of transportation 

conformity under CAA section 176(c), 

based on the motor vehicle emissions in 

the 1997 PM–10 plan. On November 20, 

2002, we found that this submittal met 

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. 

In this document, we refer to the PM–

10 portion of the 1994 and 1997 Air 

Quality Management Plans as ‘‘the 1994 

plan’’ and ‘‘1997 plan.’’ We refer to the 

1998 and 1999 amendments to the 1997 

plan as the ‘‘1998 amendments,’’ and 

‘‘1999 amendments,’’ respectively, and 

we refer to the 2002 submittal as the 

‘‘2002 status report.’’

Both the District and CARB satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption of 

the plans and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. The District 

conducted numerous public workshops, 

and properly noticed the public hearing 

at which the plans were adopted. The 

SIP submittals include proof of 

publication for notices of the public 

hearings. Therefore, we conclude that 

the 1994 and 1997 plans, the 1998 and 

1999 amendments, and the 2002 status 

report met the public notice and 

involvement requirements of section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA. 

II. Evaluation of the SIP Submittals 

A. Emission Inventories 

The emission inventories in the 1997 

plan supersede those in the 1994 plan. 

The 1997 plan includes summary 

emission inventories for major source 

categories in tons per annual average 

day for VOC, NOX, CO, SOx, and PM–

10 for the 1993 base year (Table 3–3A) 

and for 2000 (Table 3–5A) and 2006 

(Table 3–6A). Appendix III (Base and 

Future Year Emission Inventories) to the 

1997 plan provides more detailed 

emissions inventories for 1987, 1990, 

1993, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 

2006. Appendix III also includes 

additional emissions data, including 

planning inventories for summer and 

winter days, and estimates of emission 

reductions from each of the 1997 plan 

control measures for 2000, 2006, and 

subsequent years. Finally, Appendix III 

documents the source of the data and 

references SCAQMD and ARB reports 

that provide detailed information on the 

methodologies used to estimate 

emissions from area sources. 

Appendix V (Modeling and 

Attainment Demonstrations) includes 

estimated emission reductions by 

control measure for PM–10 milestone 

years (1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006) and 

the detailed emission inventories used 

in the modeling analyses. 

The 1997 plan’s emission inventories 

employ activity levels, emission factors, 

and growth projections that were the 

most current and accurate available 

when the plan was required to be 

submitted and when the plan was, in 

fact, submitted: February 1997. The 

emission inventories are complete with 

respect to sources that have been found 

to contribute to PM–10 violations. We 

therefore propose to approve the 

emission inventories in Chapter 3, 

Appendix III, and Appendix V of the 

1997 plan as meeting the provisions of 

CAA section 172(c)(3). 

In the years since development, 

adoption, and submittal of the 1997 

plan, CARB has prepared draft revisions 

to the mobile source component of the 

emissions inventories, including the 

model used to calculate exhaust and 

evaporative emissions from motor 

vehicles. This California-specific motor 

vehicle emissions model is known as 

EMFAC. The version of the model 

available for development of the 1997 

PM–10 plan is known as EMFAC 7G, 

adopted by CARB in 1996 (CARB, 

Methodology for Estimating Emissions 

from On-Road Motor Vehicles, 1996).5

CARB and SCAQMD have formally 

committed to adopt and submit a 

revised PM–10 plan and revised motor 

vehicle emissions budgets by Spring 

2003, and to base the new plan and 

budgets on use of the most current and 

accurate emissions data, including the 

latest available version of the EMFAC 

model for motor vehicle emissions, 

incorporating the latest planning 

assumptions on vehicle fleet and age 

distribution, and incorporating the latest 

activity levels. This revised plan will 

also update the ozone and CO SIPs and 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77215

6The plan must also satisfy lesser control 

measure provisions applicable to moderate areas, 

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for 

areas sources such as fugitive dust, and Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for stationary 

sources such as commercial and industrial 

operations. We are not making an independent 

assessment of the plan’s control measures against 

the RACM and RACT requirements, since the plan 

will meet RACM and RACT requirements if it is 

found to meet the BACM requirement.

7See, for example, our approval of the 1997 

ozone plan and that plan’s NOX and VOC control 

measure commitments, as amended in 1999 (65 FR 

6091, February 8, 2000; 65 FR 18903, April 10, 

2000). We have approved the District’s NOX and 

VOC regulations in separate rulemaking over the 

years. You may see copies of the approved rules at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/. See also our 

approval of SCAQMD’s fugitive dust regulations, 

Rules 403 (Fugitive Dust) and 1186 (PM–10 

Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and 

Livestock Operations), on August 11, 1998 (63 FR 

42786) and February 17, 2000 (65 FR 8057).

budgets for the South Coast, which are 

similarly based on motor vehicle 

emissions calculated using EMFAC 7G 

and planning assumptions available in 

1996. 

We believe that approval of the 1997 

plan’s emissions inventories and the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

derived from the 1997 plan’s emissions 

inventories is warranted at this time, 

since the inventories and budgets reflect 

the best available information at the 

time of the plan’s preparation. 

Moreover, both SCAQMD and CARB 

have committed to submit, within a 

short period of time, a revised plan with 

updated emissions inventories and 

budgets. The transportation conformity 

implications of our proposed approval 

are discussed later in this document, in 

section II.G., Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets.

B. Control Measures 

1. Applicable Requirements 

Because the South Coast is classified 

as serious for PM–10, the nonattainment 

plan for the area must include control 

measures that reflect a BACM level of 

control for each source category that 

contributes significantly to a violation of 

the 24-hour or annual PM–10 NAAQS.6

By analogy to Title I Part C of the 

Clean Air Act relating to Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), EPA 

interprets BACM for serious PM–10 

areas as generally similar to the 

definition of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) for the PSD 

program. PM–10 BACM is therefore 

defined as ‘‘the maximum degree of 

emissions reduction of PM–10 and PM–

10 precursors from a source * * * 

which is determined on a case-by-case 

basis, taking into account energy, 

environmental, and economic impacts 

and other costs, to be achievable for 

such source through application of 

production processes and available 

methods, systems, and techniques for 

control of each such pollutant.’’ General 

Preamble Addendum, 59 FR 42010 

(August 16, 1994). 

EPA exempts from the BACM 

requirement de minimis source 

categories, which do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment. By 

analogy to the new source permit 

programs (40 CFR 51.165(b)), EPA has 

presumed that a source category 

contributes significantly to a violation of 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS if its impact 

at the location of expected violation 

would exceed 5 μg/m3, and would 

contribute significantly to a violation of 

the annual PM–10 NAAQS if its impact 

at the time and location of the expected 

violation would exceed 1 μg/m3. 59 FR 

42011. However, states must also review 

the potential to attain the PM–10 

NAAQS earlier through application of 

controls on anthropogenic sources 

below these general levels. 

SCAQMD identified significant 

categories as part of the BACM 

provisions of the 1994 plan. Appendix 

I–D (Best Available Control Measures—

PM10 SIP for the South Coast Air 

Basin), Chapter 3, includes a calculation 

of the ambient impact of source 

categories at 5 representative sampling 

sites in the South Coast, which were 

subject to source apportionment 

analysis. Table 3–2 shows source 

contribution to annual average 

concentrations of ammonium sulfate, 

ammonium nitrate, secondary carbon, 

and geological particulate. Table 3–3 

shows contributions to 24-hour average 

concentrations for the same species. The 

Tables show that the following 

categories were clearly significant 

contributors with respect to both of the 

NAAQS: Paved road dust, unpaved road 

dust, construction and demolition, and 

motor vehicles. The SCAQMD noted 

that 3 other categories are slightly above 

the de minimis levels but, given 

emission uncertainties, may not be 

significant: Non-farm equipment, nonutility internal combustion engines, and 

refinery boilers and heaters. These 3 

source categories and most of the source 

categories that are below the de minimis 

levels were subject to stringent 

SCAQMD or CARB regulations, which 

helped keep PM–10 impact levels from 

these categories low, despite the large 

population and activity levels in the 

basin. 

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) provides 

that BACM must be implemented 

within 4 years after the date the area is 

reclassified to serious. In the case of the 

South Coast, reclassification to serious 

became effective on January 8, 1993, so 

BACM implementation is required by 

January 8, 1997. 

Because the State has requested an 

extension of the PM–10 NAAQS 

attainment deadline pursuant to CAA 

section 188(e), the plan must include a 

demonstration that ‘‘the plan for the 

area includes the most stringent 

measures that are included in the 

implementation plan of any State or are 

achieved in practice in any State, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the 

area.’’

Finally, the control measures in the 

serious area plan must be sufficient to 

achieve expeditious attainment by the 

applicable deadline. 

2. Description of Control Measures 

The control measures in the 1997 

PM–10 plan are described at length in 

Appendix IV–A (Stationary and Mobile 

Source Control Measures). To reduce 

secondary precursor emissions of PM–

10 (notably NOX and, to a lesser extent, 

SOx, VOC, and ammonia), the 1997 PM–

10 plan relies on a large number of 

SCAQMD and CARB control measures, 

either as part of the base line emissions 

(this is primarily the case for measures 

which were fully adopted in regulatory 

form by 1996) or as specific control 

measure commitments. The majority of 

these control measures have been 

approved in prior actions on South 

Coast ozone plans or on individual 

SCAQMD regulations submitted over 

the years.7

The 1997 plan also contains SCAQMD 

control measure commitments to reduce 

primary PM–10. These control measure 

commitments have not been previously 

approved and we are proposing 

approval of them at this time. Table 1 

below, entitled ‘‘South Coast PM–10 

Control Measure Commitments,’’ lists 

for each primary PM–10 control 

measure the SCAQMD commitments to 

adopt and implement the measure by 

specific dates to achieve particular 

emission reductions. A thorough 

discussion of each of the measures may 

be found in Appendix IV–A; the 

adoption and implementation dates are 

taken from Table 7–3 in the 1997 plan, 

Table 2–1 in the 1999 amendments, and 

Attachment D in the 2002 status report; 

the emission reduction commitments 

are taken from the 1997 plan, Appendix 

V, Attachment A, and from the 2002 

status report, Attachment D.

77216 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

8The SCAQMD’s analyses were performed in the 

months immediately prior to adoption and 

submittal of the 1994 and 1997 plans, and so reflect 

information current at that time on the availability 

and applicability of control measures within the 

South Coast to address the BACM and MSM 

criteria. As part of the 2003 plan revision, SCAQMD 

intends to reassess BACM and MSM and adopt any 

measures directed by a new BACM or MSM 

evaluation. However, for purposes of our action on 

the submittals now before us, we are applying 

BACM and MSM tests appropriate at the time of the 

plans’ submittal dates, when the BACM and serious 

area attainment plans were due. Because the 

statutory BACM implementation deadline will have 

passed for any new measures included in the 2003 

plan revision, that plan must assure that BACM will 

be implemented ‘‘as soon as possible.’’ Delaney v. 

EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has 

interpreted this requirement to be ‘‘as soon as 

practicable.’’ 55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 

1990).

TABLE 1.—SOUTH COAST PM–10 CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS

[Emission reductions shown in tons per day of PM–10] 

Measure Adoption

date 

Implementation 

date 

2003 emission 

reductions 

2006 emission 

reductions 

BCM–01 Emission Reductions from Paved Roads (Rule 403) ............... 1997 1997 53.33 54.40 

BCM–06 Emission Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources to meet 

BACM Requirements (Rule 403) ......................................................... 1997 1997 5.65 5.88 

BCM–03 Emission Reductions from Unpaved Roads & Parking Lot 

and Staging Areas (Rule 403) ............................................................. 1997 1997–2006 10.49 15.21 

BCM–04 Emission Reductions from Agricultural Activities (Rule 403) ... 1997 1997–9 0.03 0.03 

CMB–09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Units ..................................................................................................... 1 2002 1 2006 0.00 0.48 

PRC–01 Emission Reductions from Woodworking Operations .............. 1 2002 1 2002 7.20 7.50 

PRC–03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations ................... 1 2003–4 1 2004–6 0.00 7.87 

WST–01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste ............................ 2 2002 2 2004 6.16 5.96 

1These dates reflect changes made in the 2002 status report, amending the 1997 plan. 

2These dates reflect changes made in the 1999 amendments to the 1997 plan. 

In the 1994 and 1997 plans and in the 

appendices to the plans (e.g., 1994 plan, 

Appendix I–D), the District has 

provided extensive documentation on 

both the control measures included in 

the plan and those rejected. The 

documentation quantifies the costs of 

implementation, discusses the 

technological feasibility of control 

options, explains the schedule for 

expeditious implementation, and 

examines other factors as part of a 

comprehensive justification of the 

measures as reflecting BACM. As 

discussed above, the plans also include 

quantitative analyses of the South Coast 

emissions sources and a determination 

of which categories have ‘‘significant’’

impacts on PM–10 concentrations. 

SCAQMD also reviewed the measures 

against the MSM criteria, in order to 

demonstrate that the plan reflects the 

most stringent measures that were 

included in the implementation plan of 

any State or were achieved in practice 

in any State, and can feasibly be 

implemented in the area. SCAQMD 

further analyzed all source categories 

and control approaches as part of an ‘‘all 

feasible measures’’ requirement of State 

law, and assessed on an international 

scale those potential control measures 

that could be adopted to attain the 

ozone NAAQS in the South Coast, the 

only ozone area in the country classified 

as extreme. 

We agree with the SCAQMD’s 

conclusion that the District’s control 

measures represent the most stringent 

measures at the time the plans were 

required to be submitted. The plans 

therefore demonstrate that BACM and 

MSM have been adopted for each of the 

significant source categories.8

3. Proposed Action on Control Measures 

We conclude that the submittals 

demonstrate that the control measures 

for each significant source category, and 

for de minimis categories as a whole, are 

consistent with the BACM requirement 

in terms of the timing, degree, and 

extent of the control program and reflect 

MSM at the time the plan was required 

to be submitted. 

We also conclude that the measures 

are sufficient to meet RFP and 

expeditious attainment provisions, as 

discussed below in sections II.D and 

II.F. 

We therefore propose to approve the 

control measures under CAA section 

110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a), 188(e), and 

189(b)(1)(B). We are proposing to 

approve each of the control measure 

commitments to adopt and implement 

rules by specified dates and to achieve 

particular emission reductions by 

milestone years. Specifically, we are 

approving the SCAQMD’s enforceable 

commitments in Table 1, taken from 

Attachment D to the 2002 status report, 

and the descriptions of the measures in 

Appendix IV–A of the 1997 plan, as 

amended by the 1999 amendments. 

C. Contingency Measures

The CAA requires that the SIP include 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to meet 

progress requirements or to attain the 

NAAQS by the applicable deadline. In 

response to this provision, the 1997 

plan includes contingency measures, 3 

of which are specifically directed 

toward increasing reductions of primary 

PM–10: CTY–12—Emission Reductions 

from Paved Roads (Curb and Gutter/

Chemical Stabilization); CTY–13—

Further Emission Reductions from 

Construction and Demolition Activities; 

and CTY–14—Emission Reductions 

from Miscellaneous Sources (Weed 

Abatement). These measures are 

discussed at length in Appendix IV, 

Section 6, pages IV–6–25 through IV–6–

33. Each measure has the potential to 

achieve significant further PM–10 

reductions and may be implemented 

quickly to cure a SIP shortfall. 

We conclude that the 1997 plan 

satisfies the contingency requirements, 

and propose to approve the SCAQMD’s 

contingency measure commitments 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) as meeting 

the contingency provisions of CAA 

section 172(c)(9). Specifically, we are 

approving the contingency measure 

commitments as set forth in Section 6 of 

Appendix IV–A to the 1997 plan. 

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

and Milestones 

The plan must also include 

quantitative milestones which are to be 

achieved every 3 years until the area is 

redesignated to attainment, and show 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment deadline. CAA 

section 189(c). 

The 1997 plan, as modified by the 

2002 status report, includes enforceable 

schedules for implementation of the 

specified control measures resulting in 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77217

9Over the years, EPA has issued some 

recommendations on PM–10 modeling, including 

those codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 7.2.1 

and 7.2.2, and those set forth in the PM–10 SIP 

Development Guideline (USEPA 450/2–860001, 6/

87). Although we do not set minimum performance 

goals or require model performance evaluation for 

PM–10 modeling, the SCAQMD included a 

performance evaluation for the UAM/LC at each of 

the 5 study sites for sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and 

primary PM–10 (1997 plan, Appendix V, pages

V–2–52 to V–2–54). For the peak site, Rubidoux, the 

annual percent error is under 20 percent for nitrate, 

ammonium, and primary PM–10, but is 42.9 

percent for sulfate. Sulfates, however, account for 

less than 5 ug/m3 at each of the stations, and bias 

in the prediction performance is thus typically less 

than 2 ug/m3.

the emissions levels shown in Table 2—

‘‘South Coast PM–10 Reasonable 

Further Progress Milestones.’’ Using the 

approaches discussed in Section II.F. 

below, the SCAQMD modeled the 

emissions levels for 2006 to demonstrate 

attainment of both the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 NAAQS.

TABLE 2.—SOUTH COAST PM–10 

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

MILESTONES

[Emissions are shown in tons per day] 

Pollutant 2003 2006 

PM–10 .............................. 310 301 

NOX .................................. 748 635 

SOX ................................... 64 67 

VOC .................................. 747 623 

EPA proposes to approve this annual 

schedule as meeting the RFP and 

milestone requirements of CAA section 

189(c), since the schedule reflects 

expeditious implementation of BACM 

and expeditious attainment of the 24-

hour and annual PM–10 NAAQS. We 

are approving the RFP and milestone 

provisions in the 1997 plan, Chapters 4 

and 6, Appendix III, and Chapter 2 of 

Appendix V, as modified by the 2002 

status report. 

E. Attainment Demonstration 

The SIP must provide a detailed 

demonstration (including air quality 

modeling) that the specified control 

strategy will reduce PM–10 emissions so 

that the standards will be attained as 

soon as practicable but no later than 

December 31, 2006, assuming final EPA 

approval of the attainment date 

extension. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). 

EPA considers the area to be in 

attainment of the NAAQS if 24-hour 

concentrations are 150 ug/m3 or less 

and the annual arithmetic mean is 50 

ug/m3 or less. In the case of the South 

Coast, the attainment demonstration in 

the 1997 PM–10 plan must analyze both 

the 24-hour and annual NAAQS, since 

the area has historically violated both 

NAAQS. 

Because of the complexity and 

diversity of the PM–10 problem in the 

South Coast, the SCAQMD decided to 

use a variety of modeling approaches to 

assess control scenarios and determine 

attainment of the 24-hour and annual 

PM–10 NAAQS: (1) Urban Airshed 

Modeling with Linear Chemistry 

Module (UAM/LC (Lurmann and Kumar 

1996); (2) the Chemical Mass Balance 

(CMB) receptor model for source 

apportionment in the Basin; (3) the 

particle in cell (PIC) model developed 

by California Institute of Technology for 

determining sulfate and nitrate 

formation; and (4) UAM-Aero (Kumar 

and Lurmann, 1996) for evaluating 

interactions of emissions, meteorology, 

and aerosol chemistry. The inputs and 

applications of each of these models are 

described in Chapter 2 of Appendix V 

(Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstrations) of the 1997 plan. 

The modeling results for 2000, 2006, 

and 2010 are presented in the 1997 

AQMP, Chapter 5 (Figures 5–3, 5–4, and 

5–5), and on pages V–2–58 to V–2–67 of 

Appendix V. The UAM/LC and CMB 

modeling predicts that the peak annual 

concentration in 2006 with 

implementation of controls will be 

48.10 ug/m3, compared to the 50 ug/m3 

annual PM–10 NAAQS. The speciated 

rollback analysis predicts peak 

concentrations of 47.10 ug/m3 for 2006 

with controls. The UAM/LC and CMB 

modeling predicts that the peak 24-hour 

concentration in 2006 with controls will 

be 142.9 ug/m3, while the speciated 

rollback analysis predicts 136.26 ug/m3, 

compared to the 150 ug/m3 24-hour 

PM–10 NAAQS. 

In contrast to other pollutants, we 

have not issued detailed modeling 

guidelines for PM–10, nor have we 

established minimum performance 

requirements for PM–10 modeling.9 We 

have reviewed the SCAQMD’s modeling 

approaches for both primary PM–10 and 

secondary PM–10, using both receptor 

modeling and dispersion modeling. We 

believe that the modeling in the 1997 

plan provides a reasonable basis for 

linking emissions with air quality, for 

identifying an appropriate control 

strategy, and for determining whether 

the strategy delivers attainment for both 

the 24-hour and annual PM–10 NAAQS.

The SCAQMD’s modeling shows that 

the level of emissions after 

implementation of the proposed set of 

control strategies would result in 

ambient concentrations within the 

South Coast in 2006 consistent with 

attainment of both the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 NAAQS. We therefore 

conclude that the air quality modeling 

and attainment demonstration 

contained in the 1997 plan, Chapter 5 

and Appendix V, Chapter 2, are 

consistent with existing EPA guidance, 

and we propose to approve the 

attainment demonstration under CAA 

section 189(b)(1)(A). 

F. Extension of the Attainment Deadline 

CAA section 188(e) allows states to 

apply for up to a 5-year extension of the 

serious area attainment deadline of 

December 31, 2001. In order to obtain 

the extension, there must be a showing 

that: (1) The plan for the area includes 

the most stringent measures that are 

included in the SIP of any state or are 

achieved in practice in any state, and 

can feasibly be implemented in the area, 

(2) the state complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the 

implementation plan for the area, and 

(3) attainment by 2001 would be 

impracticable.

As discussed in section II.B. above, 

we propose to conclude that the South 

Coast PM–10 plans include BACM and 

MSM for each significant source 

category, and that the implementation 

schedule for each control measure is as 

expeditious as practicable. Attachment 

B to the 2002 status report shows that 

the responsible agencies have generally 

met the SIP requirements and 

commitments. Although the adoption 

and implementation dates of some of 

the 1997 plan’s scheduled measures 

have been revised, EPA agrees with the 

SCAQMD that SIP implementation has 

been satisfactory and changes in the 

schedule should not adversely affect air 

quality at the 2003 milestone or at the 

2006 attainment date. 

Using UAM/LC and chemical mass 

balance modeling techniques discussed 

below in section II.E., the SCAQMD 

calculated 24-hour and annual PM10 

concentrations in the year 2000 for the 

5 representative sampling sites in the 

basin, with and without the plan control 

measures (1997 plan, Tables 2–17 and 

2–19). The results show attainment at 4 

of the sites but not at the Rubidoux site 

in northwestern Riverside County, 

where continued violations of both the 

24-hour and annual NAAQS were 

predicted, despite aggressive 

implementation of BACM and MSM. 

Similar modeling analyses for 2006 

show that additional emissions 

reductions from BACM and MSM, along 

with further emissions reductions from 

de minimis source categories, reduced 

ambient PM–10 concentrations further, 

bringing Rubidoux values slightly below 

both the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS. Based on this analysis, the 

SCAQMD determined that attainment 

77218 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

10The conformity regulations provide that, for 

purposes of budgets and conformity determinations, 

the applicable pollutants are VOC, NOX, and

PM–10 if the applicable implementation plan 

establishes a budget for such emissions as part of 

the RFP, attainment, or maintenance strategy, or 

EPA has made such a finding. 40 CFR 

91.102(b)(2)(iii). Thus, although the SCAQMD has 

established SOX as a PM–10 precursor in the South 

Coast and has set RFP and attainment reduction 

targets for SOX, the conformity regulations do not 

allow for SOX budgets. The conformity regulations 

require that, in PM–10 areas with SIPs which 

identify construction-related fugitive PM–10 as a 

contributor to the nonattainment problem, the

PM–10 budget and conformity analysis must 

include fugitive PM–10 emissions associated with 

the construction of highway and transit projects. 40 

CFR 93.122(d)(2).

could not feasibly be achieved before 

2006. 

We find that the SCAQMD has met 

the CAA provisions relating to 

attainment date extensions, and we 

propose to grant, under CAA section 

188(e), a 5-year attainment date 

extension to December 31, 2006, for 

attainment of both the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 NAAQS, based on the 

demonstration provided in the 1997 

plan in Chapters 5 and 6 and in 

Appendix V, Chapter 2. 

G. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

Rate of progress and attainment 

demonstration submittals must specify 

the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related precursors of

PM–10 allowed in each milestone year 

and the attainment year. The submittals 

must also demonstrate that these 

emissions levels, when considered with 

emissions from all other sources, are 

consistent with RFP and attainment. In 

order for us to find these emissions 

levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate and 

approvable, the submittal must meet the 

conformity adequacy provisions of 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable 

under all pertinent SIP requirements. 

The budgets defined by this and other 

plans when they are approved into the 

SIP or, in some cases, when the budgets 

are found to be adequate, are then used 

to determine the conformity of 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects to the SIP, as described by CAA 

section 176(c)(3)(A). For more detail on 

this part of the conformity requirements, 

see 40 CFR 93.118. For transportation 

conformity purposes, the cap on 

emissions of transportation-related

PM–10 precursors is known as the 

motor vehicle emissions budget. The 

budget must reflect all of the motor 

vehicle control measures contained in 

the attainment demonstration (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(v)), and must include

PM–10 and PM–10 precursor emissions 

from the following sources: motor 

vehicles, reentrained dust from traffic 

on paved and unpaved roads, and 

emissions during construction of 

highway and rail projects.10

The motor vehicle emissions budgets 

are presented in Table 3 below, entitled 

‘‘South Coast PM–10 Plan Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets,’’ which is 

taken from Attachment C to the 2002 

status report. Emission reductions 

attributed to transportation control 

measures (TCMs) in the SIP are shown 

as positive numbers, and emission 

increases associated with the TCMs are 

shown as negative numbers in Table 3; 

however, as noted, the TCM emissions 

impacts are incorporated in the motor 

vehicle emissions lines in the budgets.

TABLE 3.—SOUTH COAST PM–10 PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Emissions are shown in tons per day] 

Year and Source Category PM–10 NOX VOC 

2003 Budget: 

Motor vehicles .............................................................................................................................................. 14.5 429.1 258.0 

Reentrained dust from paved roads ............................................................................................................. 130.6 ................ ................

Reentrained dust from unpaved roads ......................................................................................................... 41.9 ................ ................

Construction of transportation projects ........................................................................................................ 27.1 ................ ................

Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 214.1 419.1 258.0 

TCM reductions (already included in budget) ....................................................................................... 0.1 –1.8 9.6 

2006 Budget: 

Motor vehicles .............................................................................................................................................. 13.7 350.2 187.2 

Reentrained dust from paved roads ............................................................................................................. 133.2 ................ ................

Reentrained dust from unpaved roads ......................................................................................................... 37.2 ................ ................

Construction of transportation projects ........................................................................................................ 28.1 ................ ................

Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 212.2 350.2 187.2 

TCM reductions (already included in budget) ....................................................................................... 0.1 –2.3 14.7 

2010 Budget: 

Motor vehicles .............................................................................................................................................. 13.5 282.7 81.8 

Reentrained dust from paved roads ............................................................................................................. 136.7 ................ ................

Reentrained dust from unpaved roads ......................................................................................................... 37.2 ................ ................

Construction of transportation projects ........................................................................................................ 29.1 ................ ................

Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 216.5 282.7 81.8 

TCM reductions (already included in budget) ....................................................................................... 0.2 –3.2 17.0 

2020 Budget: 

Motor vehicles .............................................................................................................................................. 14.6 272.3 56.3 

Reentrained dust from paved roads ............................................................................................................. 143.7 ................ ................

Reentrained dust from unpaved roads ......................................................................................................... 37.2 ................ ................

Construction of transportion projects ........................................................................................................... 30.0 ................ ................

Total ....................................................................................................................................................... 225.5 272.3 56.3 

TCM Reductions .................................................................................................................................... 0.5 7.2 11.4 

As discussed above in section II.A., 

Emission Inventories, the motor vehicle 

emissions portion of these budgets (i.e., 

the evaporative and tailpipe emissions) 

was developed using the EMFAC 7G 

motor vehicle emissions factors. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77219

When the 2010 and 2020 budgets 

were adopted on April 10, 1998, 

SCAQMD submitted with the 1998 

amendments a modeled demonstration 

that the emissions levels for motor 

vehicles reflected in the budgets, 

combined with emissions levels from all 

other PM–10 and PM–10 precursor 

emissions sources in the South Coast, 

would be consistent with maintenance 

of the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS. This demonstration was 

required in order to allow for approval 

of the budgets, since the budgets show 

a slight increase in emissions of primary 

PM–10 over the 2006 attainment levels 

(an increase of 2 percent in 2010 and 6 

percent in 2020). The demonstration 

showed that the increase in primary 

PM–10 associated with motor vehicles 

is more than offset by decreases in 

emissions of secondary PM–10 

precursors, resulting in projected

24-hour and annual concentrations 

below the predicted 2006 levels, which 

are below the NAAQS. 

We propose to approve the motor 

vehicle emission budgets as consistent 

with the adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4), including consistency with 

the baseline emissions inventories, the 

motor vehicle control measure emission 

reductions used in the progress and 

attainment demonstration, and the 

reductions needed for continued 

attainment of the standard after the 

attainment deadline. Specifically, we 

are approving the budgets in the 2002 

status report, which are based on, and 

consistent with, the 1997 plan and the 

1998 amendment. 

As discussed in section II.A., CARB is 

finalizing a revised version of EMFAC, 

and both CARB and SCAQMD have 

committed to adopt and submit a 

comprehensive revision to the PM–10 

plan in Spring 2003, using the new 

EMFAC, incorporating the latest 

planning assumptions on vehicle fleet 

and age distribution, and incorporating 

the latest activity levels. This revised 

plan will include revised budgets, based 

on the new inventory and attainment 

demonstration. Assuming that these 

new budgets are adequate and 

approvable, the new budgets will soon 

replace the budgets in the current 

submittal. 

Since these revised budgets will be 

based on the most current and accurate 

motor vehicle emissions data, we intend 

to allow for expedited use of the 

updated budgets in transportation 

conformity determinations. Therefore, 

we propose to limit our proposed 

approval of the budgets in the current 

submittal to last only until we find 

adequate the new budgets that are 

expected to be adopted in Spring 2003 

as part of the revised PM–10 plan for the 

South Coast. On the effective date of our 

adequacy finding for the new budgets, 

our approval of the budgets in the 

current submittal would terminate and 

thus the new adequate budget would 

apply for purposes of transportation 

conformity. We have separately 

promulgated a similar limitation on the 

approval of the existing South Coast 

ozone and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

budgets, in order to expedite use of new 

budgets associated with these pollutants 

in the 2003 plan revision for the South 

Coast. 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 

2002). 

III. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

serious area PM–10 SIP submitted by 

the State of California for the South 

Coast. Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve the 1994 and 1997 PM–10 

plans, the 1998 and 1999 amendments, 

and the 2002 status report with respect 

to the CAA requirements for emissions 

inventories under section 172(c)(3); 

control measures under section 

110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a), 188(e), and 

189(b)(1)(B); RFP under section 189(c); 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9); demonstration of attainment 

under section 189(b)(1)(A); and motor 

vehicle emissions budgets under section 

176(c)(2)(A). We are proposing to limit 

our approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets to last only until the 

effective date of our adequacy findings 

for new replacement budgets. We are 

also proposing to approve the State’s 

request for an extension of the 

attainment date from December 31, 2001 

to December 31, 2006, under CAA 

section 188(e). We show the proposed 

approvals in Table 4—‘‘Proposed 

Approvals of South Coast PM–10 

Submittals.’’

TABLE 4.—PROPOSED APPROVALS OF SOUTH COAST PM–10 SUBMITTALS

CAA section Provision SIP submittal Plan citation 

172(c)(3) .......................................... Emission inventories .................... 1997 plan ..................................... 1997 plan Ch. 3; App. III; App. V, 

Ch. 2 

110(a), 188(e), and 189(b)(1)(B) .... Control measures ......................... 1994 plan .....................................

1997 plan .....................................

1999 amendment .........................

2002 status report ........................

1997 plan Ch. 4, App. IV–A; 1999 

plan, App. B; 2002 status report, Att. D 

189(c) .............................................. Reasonable further progress ....... 1997 plan .....................................

2002 status report ........................

1997 plan, Ch. 4 & 6, App. III, 

App. V, Ch. 2; 2002 status report 

172(c)(9) .......................................... Contingency measures ................ 1997 plan ..................................... 1997 plan, App. IV–A 

189(b)(1)(A) ..................................... Attainment demonstration ............ 1997 plan ..................................... 1997 plan, Ch. 5, App. V 

176(c)(2)(A) ..................................... Motor vehicle emissions budgets 1997 plan .....................................

1998 amendment .........................

2002 status report ........................

2002 status report, Att. C 

188(e) .............................................. Attainment date extension ........... 1997 plan ..................................... 1997 plan, Ch. 5 & 6, App. V, Ch. 

2 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

proposes to approve pre-existing 

77220 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

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

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state plan 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 6, 2002. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 02–31680 Filed 12–16–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 43, 63 and 64

[IB Docket Nos. 02–324, 96–261; DA 02–

3314] 

International Settlements Policy 

Reform and International Settlement 

Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On October 25, 2002, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

published a proposed rule document 

initiating a proceeding to re-examine the 

Commission’s International Settlements 

Policy. In light of recent international 

developments, the Commission decided 

to extend the initial pleading cycle by 

35 days to allow interested parties an 

opportunity to include in their initial 

comments any response to these recent 

developments and their effect on the 

policies under consideration in the 

proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

January 14, 2003. Reply Comments are 

due on or before February 6, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. See Supplementary Information 

for filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Ball, Chief, or Lisa Choi, Senior 

Legal Advisor, Policy Division, 

International Bureau, (202) 418–1460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On 

October 11, 2002, the Commission 

released a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment 

from the public regarding possible 

reform of its International Settlements 

Policy, International Simple Resale and 

benchmarks policies, and the issue of 

foreign mobile termination rates. (See 67 

FR 65527, October 25, 2002.) 

2. The Commission has become aware 

of the recent actions taken by several 

foreign administrations to impose rate 

floors on international termination rates, 

including U.S.-international accounting 

rates. Actions of this nature raise 

concerns insofar as they have the 

potential to cause increases in consumer 

calling rates by raising commerciallynegotiated termination rates between 

U.S. and foreign carriers. The NPRM in 

this proceeding specifically asked for 

comment on potential anticompetitive 

harms to U.S. carriers and consumers 

from foreign carriers with market power. 

3. In light of these recent 

developments and the questions raised 

in the NPRM regarding possible reform 

of the Commission’s ISP and accounting 

rate policies, we extend the pleading 

cycle established in the NPRM, FCC 02–

285, IB Docket Nos. 02–324 & 96–261, 

by 35 days in order to allow interested 

parties an opportunity to include in 

their initial comments any response to 

these recent developments and their 

effect on the policies under 

consideration in the proposed 

rulemaking. We find that the public 

interest will be served by this brief 

extension of both the comment and 

reply dates to allow for a more complete 

record in this proceeding. 

4. Accordingly, pursuant to §§ 1.1 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, the 

new comment due date is January 14, 

2003 and the new reply comment due 

date is February 6, 2003. Instructions for 

filing pleadings in this proceeding are 

set forth in the NPRM, available on the 

Commission’s website at http://

www.fcc.gov. All comments and reply 

comments will be available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 Twelfth 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Federal Communications Commission. 

James Ball, 

Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau.

[FR Doc. 02–31604 Filed 12–16–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 02–3189; MB Docket No. 02–363, RM–

10604] 

Digital Television Broadcast Service; 

Asheville, NC and Greenville, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

comments on a petition filed by 

Meredith Corporation, licensee of