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. 

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: 

PART 3010—REGULATION OF RATES 

FOR MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS 

■ 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: 

§ 3010.23 Calculation of percentage 

change in rates. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * Whenever possible, 

adjustments shall be based on known 

mail characteristics or historical volume 

data, as opposed to forecasts of mailer 

behavior. * * * 

■ 4. In § 3010.28, revise the section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 3010.28 Maximum size of Type 1–B rate 

adjustments. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 3010.42, revise paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 3010.42 Contents of notice of agreement 

in support of a Type 2 rate adjustment. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27159 Filed 11–8–13; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67953 

1Conformity 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. 

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 http://

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 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., 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
67954 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2Tennessee and Arkansas will submit and/or 

update their respective transportation conformity 

SIPs for the Memphis NAA in separate submissions. 

3The 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. 

4The 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. 

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, 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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) * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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 Explanation 

*******

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 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 

downloaded at the following Internet 

address: http://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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES