Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi; Transportation Conformity SIP-Memorandum of Agreement, 67952-67956 [2013-27019]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67952
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
respectively, to conform to mandatory
OFR codification requirements.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, these corrections will be
reflected in the daily electronic Code of
Federal Regulations.
■
4. In § 3010.28, revise the section
heading to read as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
§ 3010.28 Maximum size of Type 1–B rate
adjustments.
40 CFR Part 52
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3010
Administrative practice and
procedure; Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 3010 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
■
*
*
*
*
5. In § 3010.42, revise paragraph (f) to
read as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3010
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622.
2. In § 3010.11, revise paragraphs
(b)(2), (d), and (k) to read as follows:
■
§ 3010.11 Proceedings for Type 1–A and
Type 1–B rate adjustment filings.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Whether the planned rate
adjustments measured using the formula
established in § 3010.23(c) are at or
below the limitation established in
§ 3010.28.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Within 14 days of the conclusion
of the public comment period the
Commission will determine, at a
minimum, whether the planned rate
adjustments are consistent with the
annual limitation calculated under
§§ 3010.21 or 3010.22, as applicable, the
limitation set forth in § 3010.28, and 39
U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629 and issue
an order announcing its findings.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) A Commission finding that a
planned Type 1–A or Type 1–B rate
adjustment is in compliance with the
annual limitation calculated under
§§ 3010.21 or 3010.22, as applicable; the
limitation set forth in § 3010.28; and 39
U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629 is decided
on the merits. A Commission finding
that a planned Type 1–A or Type 1–B
rate adjustment does not contravene
other policies of 39 U.S.C. chapter 36,
subchapter I is provisional and subject
to subsequent review.
■ 3. In § 3010.23, revise the third
sentence of paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Transportation Conformity SIP—
Memorandum of Agreement
*
■
AGENCY:
*
*
*
*
(f) Details regarding the expected
improvements in the net financial
position or operations of the Postal
Service. The projection of change in net
financial position as a result of the
agreement shall be based on accepted
analytical principles. The projection of
change in net financial position as a
result of the agreement shall include for
each year of the agreement:
(1) The estimated mailer-specific
costs, volumes, and revenues of the
Postal Service absent the
implementation of the negotiated
service agreement;
(2) The estimated mailer-specific
costs, volumes, and revenues of the
Postal Service which result from
implementation of the negotiated
service agreement;
(3) An analysis of the effects of the
negotiated service agreement on the
contribution to institutional costs from
mailers not party to the agreement;
(4) If mailer-specific costs are not
available, the source and derivation of
the costs that are used shall be
provided, together with a discussion of
the currency and reliability of those
costs and their suitability as a proxy for
the mailer-specific costs; and
(5) If the Postal Service believes the
Commission’s accepted analytical
principles are not the most accurate and
reliable methodology available:
(i) An explanation of the basis for that
belief; and
(ii) A projection of the change in net
financial position resulting from the
agreement made using the Postal
Service’s alternative methodology.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 3010.23 Calculation of percentage
change in rates.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
*
[FR Doc. 2013–27159 Filed 11–8–13; 11:15 am]
*
*
*
*
(d) * * * Whenever possible,
adjustments shall be based on known
mail characteristics or historical volume
data, as opposed to forecasts of mailer
behavior. * * *
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Nov 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0228; FRL–9902–58–
Region 4]
§ 3010.42 Contents of notice of agreement
in support of a Type 2 rate adjustment.
PART 3010—REGULATION OF RATES
FOR MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
*
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Mississippi
Department of Environment Quality
(MDEQ) on May 31, 2013. This
submission adopts a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) establishing
transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency
consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation-related control
measures and mitigation measures. This
action streamlines the conformity
process to allow direct consultation
among agencies at the Federal, state and
local levels. This final action is being
taken pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
January 13, 2014 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by December 13, 2013. If EPA receives
such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2013–0228 by one of the following
methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
0228,’’ Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
0228’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Nov 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
contact the person listed in the FOR
section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Sheckler’s telephone number is 404–
562–9222. She can also be reached via
electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@
epa.gov.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Background for This Action
III. EPA’s Analysis of Mississippi’s Submittal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking direct final action to
approve MDEQ’s May 31, 2013 SIP
submission, to adopt a MOA
establishing transportation conformity
criteria and procedures related to
interagency consultation and
enforceability of certain transportationrelated control measures and mitigation
measures for a portion of Desoto
County, Mississippi and Mississippi’s
SIP pursuant to the sections 110 and
176 of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110
of the CAA, EPA is approving into the
Mississippi SIP the May 31, 2013,
transportation conformity MOA.
II. Background for This Action
A. What is transportation conformity?
Transportation conformity is required
under section 176(c) of the CAA to
ensure that federally supported
highway, transit projects, and other
activities are consistent with (‘‘conform
to’’) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity 1
currently applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment and to areas
that have been redesignated to
attainment after 1990 (maintenance
areas) with plans developed under
section 175A of the Act, for
transportation related criteria pollutants
including ozone, particulate matter (e.g.,
1 Conformity first appeared as a requirement in
the CAA in the 1977 amendments (Pub. L. 95–95).
Although the Act did not define conformity, it
stated that no Federal department could engage in,
support in any way or provide financial assistance
for, license or permit, or approve any activity which
did not conform to a SIP which has been approved
or promulgated.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67953
PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide, and
nitrogen dioxide.
The 1990 Amendments to the CAA
expanded the scope and content of the
conformity concept by defining the
scope of conformity to a SIP. Section
176(c) of the Act defines conformity as
conformity to the SIP’s purpose of
eliminating or reducing the severity and
number of violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and achieving expeditious attainment of
such standards. Also, the CAA provides
that no Federal activity will: (1) Cause
or contribute to any new violation of
any NAAQS in any area, (2) increase the
frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any standard in any area, or
(3) delay timely attainment of any
standard or any required interim
emission reductions or other milestones
in any area. The requirements of section
176(c) of the CAA apply to all
departments, agencies and
instrumentalities of the Federal
government. Transportation conformity
refers only to the conformity of
transportation plans, programs and
projects that are funded or approved
under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). EPA
was required to issue criteria and
procedures for determining conformity
of transportation plans, programs, and
projects to a SIP pursuant to section
176(c) of the CAA. The CAA also
required the procedure to include a
requirement that each state submit a
revision to its SIP to include conformity
criteria and procedures.
B. Why are states required to submit a
transportation conformity SIP?
A transportation conformity SIP is a
plan which contains criteria and
procedures for the State Department of
Transportation (DOT), metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs), and
other state or local agencies to assess the
conformity of transportation plans,
programs and project pursuant to
section176(c) of the CAA. EPA
promulgated the first federal
transportation conformity criteria and
procedures (‘‘Conformity Rule’’) on
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188)
which was codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart T and 40 CFR part 93. Among
other things, the rule required states to
address all provisions of the conformity
rule in their SIPs frequently referred to
as ‘‘conformity SIPs.’’ Under 40 CFR
51.390, most sections of the conformity
rule were required to be copied
verbatim into the SIP. On August 10,
2005, the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users’’ (SAFETEA–LU) was
signed into law. SAFETEA–LU revised
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
67954
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
section 176(c) of the CAA transportation
conformity provisions by streamlining
the requirements for conformity SIPs.
Under SAFETEA–LU, states are
required to address and tailor only three
sections of the rule in their conformity
SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c). In
general, states are no longer required to
submit conformity SIP revisions that
address the other sections of the
conformity rule. These changes took
effect on August 10, 2005, when
SAFETEA–LU was signed into law. The
rule has been subsequently revised on
August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), August
15, 1997 (62 FR 43780), November 14,
1995 (60 FR 57179), April 10, 2000 (65
FR 18911), and August 6, 2002 (67 FR
50808).
States may also choose to develop a
MOA which establishes the roles and
procedures for transportation
conformity in place of adopting
regulations. The MOA includes the
detailed consultation procedures
developed for that particular area. The
MOAs are enforceable through the
signature of all the transportation and
air quality agencies, including the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT)
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and EPA.
C. How does transportation conformity
work?
The Federal or state transportation
conformity rule applies to applicable
NAAQS nonattainment and
maintenance areas in the state. The
MPO, the DOT (in absence of a MPO),
State and local air quality agencies, EPA
and the USDOT are involved in the
process of making conformity
determinations. Conformity
determinations are made on programs
and plans such as transportation
improvement programs (TIP),
transportation plans, and projects. The
MPOs calculate the projected emissions
that will result from implementation of
the transportation plans and programs
and compare those calculated emissions
to the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) established in the SIP. The
calculated emissions must be equal to or
smaller than the federally approved
MVEB in order for the USDOT to make
a positive conformity determination
with respect to the SIP.
Pursuant to Federal regulations, when
an area is designated nonattainment for
a transportation related NAAQS, the
state is required to submit a
transportation conformity SIP one year
after the effective date of the
nonattainment area (NAA) designations.
See 40 CFR 51.390(c). On April 30,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Nov 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
2012, EPA designated the Memphis, TNMS-AR area (hereafter referred to as the
Memphis Area) as nonattainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR
30088. The area is comprised of
Crittenden County, Arkansas, and
Shelby County, Tennessee in their
entireties and a portion of Desoto
County, Mississippi. These designations
became effective on July 20, 2012;
therefore, pursuant to 40 CR 51.390(c),
MDEQ was required to submit a
transportation conformity SIP by July
20, 2013, to address the interagency
consultation procedures and enforceable
commitments related to conformity of
transportation plans, programs, and
projects in the 8-hour ozone Memphis
NAA.2 The Memphis Urban Area MPO 3
is within the Memphis Area and is
considered the multi-jurisdictional
agency responsible for the
implementation and coordination of
urban transportation planning for all of
Shelby County Tennessee, the western
four miles of Fayette County, Tennessee
and the northern twelve miles of DeSoto
County, Mississippi.4
III. EPA Analysis of Mississippi’s
Submittal
EPA’s Transportation Conformity rule
requires the states to develop their own
processes and procedures for
interagency consultation among the
federal, state, and local agencies and
resolution of conflicts meeting the
criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP
revision must include processes and
procedures to be followed by the MPO,
state DOT, and the USDOT in
consulting with the state and local air
quality agencies and EPA before making
conformity determinations. The
conformity SIP revision must also
include processes and procedures for
the state and local air quality agencies
and EPA to coordinate the development
of applicable SIPs with MPOs, state
DOTs, and the US DOT.
On May 31, 2013, the State of
Mississippi submitted to EPA the
DeSoto County (portion of the Memphis
NAA) conformity and consultation
interagency SIP, based on an MOA
2 Tennessee and Arkansas will submit and/or
update their respective transportation conformity
SIPs for the Memphis NAA in separate submissions.
3 The West Memphis MPO is the agency
responsible for urban transportation planning for
the Crittenden County, Arkansas portion of the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 8-hour ozone NAA.
4 The portion of the Memphis Urban MPO in
DeSoto County, Mississippi is the same boundary
EPA designated as NAA for the Memphis, TN-MSAR, 2008 8-hour ozone NAA on April 30, 2012. See
77 FR 30088. The boundary extends from the
Mississippi -Tennessee state line twelve miles into
DeSoto County including the jurisdictions of Horn
Lake, Southaven, Olive Branch, Hernando and
Walls in Desoto County.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
signed by the Memphis Urban Area
MPO, the Mississippi Transportation
Commission, Mississippi Department of
Transportation, MDEQ, the USDOT
FHWA—Mississippi Division, the
USDOT FTA and EPA Region 4.
Mississippi’s MOA establishes
procedures for interagency consultation
for incorporation into the SIP to comply
with section 176(c) of the CAA and 40
CFR 93 regarding conformity of
transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed funded or
approved by the USDOT, Memphis
Urban Area MPO, MTC and acted by
and through MDEQ.
The State of Mississippi developed its
consultation SIP based on the elements
contained in 40 CFR 93.105,
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c). As a first
step, MDEQ worked with the existing
transportation planning organization’s
interagency committees that included
representatives from the MDEQ; MDOT;
the Memphis Urban Area MPO;
FHWA—Mississippi Division; FTA; and
EPA Region 4. The interagency
committee met regularly and drafted the
consultation procedures considering
elements in 40 CFR Part 93.105,
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c), and
integrated the local procedures and
processes into the MOA. Mississippi’s
MOA requirement for interagency
consultation is currently only applicable
to the DeSoto County portion of the
2008 8-hour Memphis TN-AR-MS NAA.
The resulting consultation process
developed is unique to the State of
Mississippi.
A public notice announcement on
March 8, 2013, indicated that the MOA
was available for public comment until
April 9, 2013. The MDEQ posted the
MOA on their Web site and provided
access to the documents for review in
person at the MDEQ Jackson office. A
public hearing to receive comments
regarding the proposed conformity SIP
was held on April 9, 2013, in Hernando,
Mississippi. No comments were
received at the public hearing.
EPA has reviewed MDEQ’s May 31,
2013, SIP submittal to assure
consistency with the CAA as amended
by SAFETEA–LU and EPA regulations
(40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390)
governing state procedures for
transportation conformity and
interagency consultation and has
preliminarily determined that
Mississippi’s MOA is in accordance
with the above referenced federal
requirements.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons set forth above, EPA
is taking direct final action, pursuant to
section 110 and 176 of the Act, to
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
approve Mississippi’s May 31, 2013,
transportation conformity SIP and MOA
to implement the interagency
consultation procedures and enforceable
commitments in a portion of Desoto
County, Mississippi.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This
rule will be effective January 13, 2014
without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by
December 13, 2013.
If EPA receives such comments, then
EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Parties
interested in commenting should do so
at this time. If no such comments are
received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on January 13,
2014 and no further action will be taken
on the proposed rule. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Nov 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67955
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by January 13, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particular matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: October 24, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart (Z)—(Mississippi)
2. Section 52.1270 paragraph (e) is
amended by adding a new entry for
‘‘Transportation Conformity Interagency
Consultation and General Provisions’’ at
the end of the Table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
*
*
67956
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of non-regulatory
SIP provision
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State
submittal
date/
effective date
EPA approval date
*
Transportation Conformity
Interagency Consultation
And General Provisions.
*
*
*
DeSoto County portion of Memphis, TN–AR–MS
2008 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
*
May 31, 2013
*
11–13–13 [Insert citation
of publication].
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–27019 Filed 11–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 12–375; FCC 13–113]
Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling
Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts rule changes to
bring high interstate inmate calling
service (ICS) rates into compliance with
the statutory mandate of being just,
reasonable, and fair. This action is
intended to bring rate relief to inmates
and their friends and families who have
historically been required to pay abovecost rates for interstate ICS.
DATES: This final rule is effective
February 11, 2014 except for 47 CFR
64.6060 and Section III.I which contain
information collection requirements that
are not effective until approved by the
Office of Management and Budget. The
FCC will publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing the
effective date for those sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynne Engledow, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202)
418–1520 or lynne.engledow@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No.
12–375, FCC 13–113, adopted on
August 9, 2013 and released on
September 26, 2013. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the Commission’s Reference
Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full
text of this document may be
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:11 Nov 12, 2013
Jkt 232001
downloaded at the following Internet
address: https://www.fcc.gov/
documents/—. The complete text may
be purchased from Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
To request alternative formats for
persons with disabilities (e.g., accessible
format documents, sign language,
interpreters, CARTS, etc.), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). The
Commission notes that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we previously sought
specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
I. Introduction
1. Nearly 10 years ago Martha Wright,
a grandmother from Washington, DC,
petitioned the Commission for relief
from exorbitant long-distance calling
rates from correctional facilities. Tens of
thousands of others have since urged
the Commission to act, explaining that
the rates inmates and their friends and
families pay for phone calls render it all
but impossible for inmates to maintain
contact with their loved ones and their
broader support networks, to society’s
detriment. Today, we answer those
pleas by taking critical, and long
overdue, steps to provide relief to the
millions of Americans who have borne
the financial burden of unjust and
unreasonable interstate inmate phone
rates.
2. This Order will promote the general
welfare of our nation by making it easier
for inmates to stay connected to their
families and friends while taking full
account of the security needs of
correctional facilities. Studies have
shown that family contact during
incarceration is associated with lower
recidivism rates. Lower recidivism
means fewer crimes, decreases the need
for additional correctional facilities, and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
reduces the overall costs to society.
More directly, this helps families and
the estimated 2.7 million children of
incarcerated parents in our nation, an
especially vulnerable part of our society.
One commenter states that the ‘‘[l]ack of
regular contact with incarcerated
parents has been linked to truancy,
homelessness, depression, aggression,
and poor classroom performance in
children.’’ In this Order we help these
most vulnerable children by facilitating
contact with their parents. By reducing
interstate inmate phone rates, we will
help to eliminate an unreasonable
burden on some of the most
economically disadvantaged people in
our nation. We also recognize that
inmate calling services (ICS) systems
include important security features,
such as call recording and monitoring,
that advance the safety and security of
the general public, inmates, their loved
ones, and correctional facility
employees. Our Order ensures that
security features that are part of modern
ICS continue to be provided and
improved.
3. Our actions address the most
egregious interstate long distances rates
and practices. While we generally prefer
to promote competition to ensure that
inmate phone rates are reasonable, it is
clear that this market, as currently
structured, is failing to protect the
inmates and families who pay these
charges. Evidence in our record
demonstrates that inmate phone rates
today vary widely, and in far too many
cases greatly exceed the reasonable costs
of providing the service. While an
inmate in New Mexico may be able to
place a 15 minute interstate collect call
at an effective rate as low as $0.043 per
minute with no call set up charges, the
same call in Georgia can be as high as
$0.89 per minute, with an additional
per-call charge as high as $3.95—as
much as a 23-fold difference. Also, deaf
prisoners and family members in some
instances pay much higher rates than
hearing prisoners for equivalent
communications with their families. For
example, the family of a deaf inmate in
Maryland paid $20.40 for a nine minute
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67952-67956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0228; FRL-9902-58-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Transportation Conformity SIP--Memorandum of Agreement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Mississippi
Department of Environment Quality (MDEQ) on May 31, 2013. This
submission adopts a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing
transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to
interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation measures. This action
streamlines the conformity process to allow direct consultation among
agencies at the Federal, state and local levels. This final action is
being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective January 13, 2014 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 13,
2013. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0228 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0228,'' Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
[[Page 67953]]
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0228'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Sheckler's telephone number is 404-562-9222. She can also be reached
via electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Background for This Action
III. EPA's Analysis of Mississippi's Submittal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking direct final action to approve MDEQ's May 31, 2013
SIP submission, to adopt a MOA establishing transportation conformity
criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation and
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures for a portion of Desoto County, Mississippi and
Mississippi's SIP pursuant to the sections 110 and 176 of the CAA.
Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving into the
Mississippi SIP the May 31, 2013, transportation conformity MOA.
II. Background for This Action
A. What is transportation conformity?
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
CAA to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and
other activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of
the SIP. Conformity \1\ currently applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment
after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A
of the Act, for transportation related criteria pollutants including
ozone, particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10),
carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conformity first appeared as a requirement in the CAA in the
1977 amendments (Pub. L. 95-95). Although the Act did not define
conformity, it stated that no Federal department could engage in,
support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or
permit, or approve any activity which did not conform to a SIP which
has been approved or promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990 Amendments to the CAA expanded the scope and content of
the conformity concept by defining the scope of conformity to a SIP.
Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as conformity to the SIP's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of
violations of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and
achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. Also, the CAA
provides that no Federal activity will: (1) Cause or contribute to any
new violation of any NAAQS in any area, (2) increase the frequency or
severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3)
delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim
emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The requirements
of section 176(c) of the CAA apply to all departments, agencies and
instrumentalities of the Federal government. Transportation conformity
refers only to the conformity of transportation plans, programs and
projects that are funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the
Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). EPA was required to issue
criteria and procedures for determining conformity of transportation
plans, programs, and projects to a SIP pursuant to section 176(c) of
the CAA. The CAA also required the procedure to include a requirement
that each state submit a revision to its SIP to include conformity
criteria and procedures.
B. Why are states required to submit a transportation conformity SIP?
A transportation conformity SIP is a plan which contains criteria
and procedures for the State Department of Transportation (DOT),
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other state or local
agencies to assess the conformity of transportation plans, programs and
project pursuant to section176(c) of the CAA. EPA promulgated the first
federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (``Conformity
Rule'') on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) which was codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93. Among other things, the rule
required states to address all provisions of the conformity rule in
their SIPs frequently referred to as ``conformity SIPs.'' Under 40 CFR
51.390, most sections of the conformity rule were required to be copied
verbatim into the SIP. On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''
(SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised
[[Page 67954]]
section 176(c) of the CAA transportation conformity provisions by
streamlining the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU,
states are required to address and tailor only three sections of the
rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii),
and 40 CFR 93.125(c). In general, states are no longer required to
submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the
conformity rule. These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when
SAFETEA-LU was signed into law. The rule has been subsequently revised
on August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780),
November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18911), and
August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808).
States may also choose to develop a MOA which establishes the roles
and procedures for transportation conformity in place of adopting
regulations. The MOA includes the detailed consultation procedures
developed for that particular area. The MOAs are enforceable through
the signature of all the transportation and air quality agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and EPA.
C. How does transportation conformity work?
The Federal or state transportation conformity rule applies to
applicable NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas in the state. The
MPO, the DOT (in absence of a MPO), State and local air quality
agencies, EPA and the USDOT are involved in the process of making
conformity determinations. Conformity determinations are made on
programs and plans such as transportation improvement programs (TIP),
transportation plans, and projects. The MPOs calculate the projected
emissions that will result from implementation of the transportation
plans and programs and compare those calculated emissions to the motor
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP. The calculated
emissions must be equal to or smaller than the federally approved MVEB
in order for the USDOT to make a positive conformity determination with
respect to the SIP.
Pursuant to Federal regulations, when an area is designated
nonattainment for a transportation related NAAQS, the state is required
to submit a transportation conformity SIP one year after the effective
date of the nonattainment area (NAA) designations. See 40 CFR
51.390(c). On April 30, 2012, EPA designated the Memphis, TN-MS-AR area
(hereafter referred to as the Memphis Area) as nonattainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. The area is comprised of
Crittenden County, Arkansas, and Shelby County, Tennessee in their
entireties and a portion of Desoto County, Mississippi. These
designations became effective on July 20, 2012; therefore, pursuant to
40 CR 51.390(c), MDEQ was required to submit a transportation
conformity SIP by July 20, 2013, to address the interagency
consultation procedures and enforceable commitments related to
conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects in the 8-
hour ozone Memphis NAA.\2\ The Memphis Urban Area MPO \3\ is within the
Memphis Area and is considered the multi-jurisdictional agency
responsible for the implementation and coordination of urban
transportation planning for all of Shelby County Tennessee, the western
four miles of Fayette County, Tennessee and the northern twelve miles
of DeSoto County, Mississippi.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Tennessee and Arkansas will submit and/or update their
respective transportation conformity SIPs for the Memphis NAA in
separate submissions.
\3\ The West Memphis MPO is the agency responsible for urban
transportation planning for the Crittenden County, Arkansas portion
of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR 2008 8-hour ozone NAA.
\4\ The portion of the Memphis Urban MPO in DeSoto County,
Mississippi is the same boundary EPA designated as NAA for the
Memphis, TN-MS-AR, 2008 8-hour ozone NAA on April 30, 2012. See 77
FR 30088. The boundary extends from the Mississippi -Tennessee state
line twelve miles into DeSoto County including the jurisdictions of
Horn Lake, Southaven, Olive Branch, Hernando and Walls in Desoto
County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA Analysis of Mississippi's Submittal
EPA's Transportation Conformity rule requires the states to develop
their own processes and procedures for interagency consultation among
the federal, state, and local agencies and resolution of conflicts
meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP revision must include
processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, state DOT, and the
USDOT in consulting with the state and local air quality agencies and
EPA before making conformity determinations. The conformity SIP
revision must also include processes and procedures for the state and
local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of
applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, and the US DOT.
On May 31, 2013, the State of Mississippi submitted to EPA the
DeSoto County (portion of the Memphis NAA) conformity and consultation
interagency SIP, based on an MOA signed by the Memphis Urban Area MPO,
the Mississippi Transportation Commission, Mississippi Department of
Transportation, MDEQ, the USDOT FHWA--Mississippi Division, the USDOT
FTA and EPA Region 4. Mississippi's MOA establishes procedures for
interagency consultation for incorporation into the SIP to comply with
section 176(c) of the CAA and 40 CFR 93 regarding conformity of
transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed funded
or approved by the USDOT, Memphis Urban Area MPO, MTC and acted by and
through MDEQ.
The State of Mississippi developed its consultation SIP based on
the elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c). As a first step, MDEQ worked with the existing
transportation planning organization's interagency committees that
included representatives from the MDEQ; MDOT; the Memphis Urban Area
MPO; FHWA--Mississippi Division; FTA; and EPA Region 4. The interagency
committee met regularly and drafted the consultation procedures
considering elements in 40 CFR Part 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c), and integrated the local procedures and processes into the
MOA. Mississippi's MOA requirement for interagency consultation is
currently only applicable to the DeSoto County portion of the 2008 8-
hour Memphis TN-AR-MS NAA. The resulting consultation process developed
is unique to the State of Mississippi.
A public notice announcement on March 8, 2013, indicated that the
MOA was available for public comment until April 9, 2013. The MDEQ
posted the MOA on their Web site and provided access to the documents
for review in person at the MDEQ Jackson office. A public hearing to
receive comments regarding the proposed conformity SIP was held on
April 9, 2013, in Hernando, Mississippi. No comments were received at
the public hearing.
EPA has reviewed MDEQ's May 31, 2013, SIP submittal to assure
consistency with the CAA as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations
(40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for
transportation conformity and interagency consultation and has
preliminarily determined that Mississippi's MOA is in accordance with
the above referenced federal requirements.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons set forth above, EPA is taking direct final action,
pursuant to section 110 and 176 of the Act, to
[[Page 67955]]
approve Mississippi's May 31, 2013, transportation conformity SIP and
MOA to implement the interagency consultation procedures and
enforceable commitments in a portion of Desoto County, Mississippi.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 13, 2014
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
December 13, 2013.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 13, 2014 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particular matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 24, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart (Z)--(Mississippi)
0
2. Section 52.1270 paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry for
``Transportation Conformity Interagency Consultation and General
Provisions'' at the end of the Table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 67956]]
EPA Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State submittal
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable geographic date/ effective EPA approval Explanation
provision or nonattainment area date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Transportation Conformity DeSoto County portion May 31, 2013...... 11-13-13 [Insert
Interagency Consultation And of Memphis, TN-AR-MS citation of
General Provisions. 2008 8-hour Ozone publication].
Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27019 Filed 11-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
