68648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Twelve), 

November 7, 2014 (Petition). 

2Notice of Filing of USPS–RM2015–5/NP1 and 

Application for Nonpublic Treatment, November 7, 

2014 (collectively, Application). The Application 

incorporates by reference the Application for NonPublic Treatment of Materials contained in 

Attachment Two to the December 27, 2013 United 

States Postal Service Fiscal Year 2013 Annual 

Compliance Report. Application at 1. See 39 CFR 

part 3007 for information on access to non-public 

material. 

3This proposal does not seek to change 

established costing methods for contractor costs 

associated with call centers that are included in 

Cost Segment 16. Id. 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2015–5; Order No. 2246] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning a 

Proposed Rulemaking on Analytical 

Principles Used in Periodic Reporting 

(Proposal Twelve). This document 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 8, 

2014. Reply Comments are due: 

December 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Summary of Proposal 

III. Initial Commission Action 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On November 7, 2014, the Postal 

Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 

CFR 3050.11 requesting that the 

Commission initiate an informal 

rulemaking proceeding to consider 

changes to analytical principles relating 

to periodic reports.1 It identifies the 

change filed in this docket as Proposal 

Twelve: To Establish a Cost 

Methodology for the Postal Service 

Customer Care Centers. Id. Attachment 

at 1. The Postal Service concurrently 

filed public and non-public versions of 

a supporting Excel spreadsheet, along 

with an application for non-public 

treatment for the sealed version.2

II. Summary of Proposal 

Background. This proposal presents 

changes in the costing methodology for 

call centers due to a change in how 

these centers are staffed. Previously, the 

Postal Service outsourced call center 

positions; recently, it brought these 

positions in-house and converted them 

to clerk craft positions. Petition, 

Attachment at 1. 

Costs associated with outsourced call 

center activities have been included in 

Cost Segment 16. Id. The Postal Service 

proposes including the bulk of FY 2014 

call center expenses in Cost Segment 3 

on grounds that clerks performed the 

bulk of call center work in FY 2014. Id. 

It identifies existing Cost Segment 3.3, 

Administrative Support and 

Miscellaneous clerk costs, as the logical 

choice for these costs because the 

activities are similar in nature to the 

activities of Claims and Inquiries clerks, 

and proposes creating a new cost 

component within Cost Segment 3.3 

(Customer Care Centers, number 424).3

Id. 

In terms of cost assignment, the Postal 

Service proposes that costs associated 

with specific inquiries relating to mail 

products or special services (and a 

proportionate share of clerk support 

costs) be fully attributed to those 

products. It proposes that costs 

associated with inquiries not related to 

products (such as ZIP Code inquiries) be 

treated as institutional costs. Id. at 2. 

The Postal Service asserts that 

achieving the correct assignment of 

institutional and attributable costs 

requires several steps, states that a 

public spreadsheet shows the specific 

calculations, and provides a brief 

explanation. Id. at 2–3. 

Cost impacts. The Postal Service 

estimates the FY 2014 clerk labor costs 

for the call centers at approximately 

$85.1 million. Id. at 1. It states that 

under the proposed method, 

approximately 56 percent of the accrued 

call center costs would be treated as 

attributable. Id. at 5. It provides an 

illustration of the overall model and a 

table showing how the estimated FY 

2014 costs would be attributed and 

distributed to products under the 

proposed methodology. Id. at 5–7. The 

table shows the impact in terms of unit 

attributable costs for each market 

dominant product. Id. at 6–7. The 

impact on the specific competitive 

products appears in the spreadsheet 

filed under seal. Id. at 6. 

III. Initial Commission Action 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2015–5 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. 

Additional information concerning the 

Petition may be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.prc.gov. Interested persons may 

submit comments on the Petition no 

later than December 8, 2014. Reply 

comments are due no later than 

December 15, 2014. Pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 505, Cassie D’Souza is designated 

as an officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2015–5 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposal Twelve), filed 

November 7, 2014. 

2. Comments are due no later than 

December 8, 2014. 

3. Reply comments are due no later 

than December 15, 2014. 

4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Cassie D’Souza to 

serve as an officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27210 Filed 11–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0270; FRL–9919–41– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68649 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

Continued 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part the 

November 17, 2011, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

provided by the Mississippi Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for 

inclusion into the Mississippi SIP. This 

proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified 

that the Mississippi SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Mississippi (hereafter 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP 

submission’’). With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting and the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission, provided 

to EPA on November 17, 2011, 

addresses the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 18, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0270, 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– 

0270,’’ 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, 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 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0270. 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 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. 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: Zuri 

Farngalo, 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. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9152. 

Mr. Farngalo can be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated 

primary and secondary NAAQS for Lead 

under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 

46246. Both primary and secondary 

standards were set at a level of 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

measured as Lead in total suspended 

particulate matter (Pb-TSP), not to be 

exceeded by the maximum arithmetic 

mean concentration averaged over a 

calendar quarter. This standard was 

based on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria 

for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 1977). On 

November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA 

issued a final rule to revise the primary 

and secondary Lead NAAQS. The 

revised primary and secondary Lead 

NAAQS were revised to 0.15 mg/m3. By 

statute, SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs to EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS.1


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘Air Pollution Control (APC)’’ or ‘‘Section APC–S– 

X’’ indicates that the cited regulation has been 

approved into Mississippi’s federally-approved SIP. 

The term ‘‘Mississippi Code’’ indicates cited 

Mississippi state statutes, which are not a part of 

the SIP unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, 

since the time of Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the state’s 

implementation plan and statutes and have been 

recodified. In its original infrastructure SIP 

submission, MDEQ refers to Mississippi Code Title 

49 as ‘‘Appendix A–8.’’ However, Mississippi 

supplemented its original infrastructure SIP 

submission following this recodification, and as 

such, updated the Mississippi Code reference to 

‘‘Appendix A–9’’ to reflect the most current 

codification. Accordingly, EPA utilizes the 

‘‘Appendix A–9’’ reference throughout today’s 

rulemaking. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure 

submissions for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i) and (J) and the majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the provisions 

pertaining to the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and 

(J), EPA is not proposing any action 

today regarding these requirements. 

EPA will act on these portions of the 

submission in a separate action. With 

respect to Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove this 

portion of Mississippi’s November 17, 

2011 submission in today’s rulemaking. 

For the aspects of Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission proposed 

for approval today, EPA is not 

approving any specific rule, but rather 

proposing that Mississippi’s already 

approved SIP meets certain CAA 

requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions in 

connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

elements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

related to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

general requirements that are the subject 

of EPA’s infrastructure SIP rulemaking 

are listed below 2 and in EPA’s October 

14, 2011, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance). 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR).3

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and 

international transport provisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area 

plan or plan revision under part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Mississippi that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the Lead NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68651 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

9On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68652 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2011. 

13Although not intended to provide guidance for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, that following the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 

the ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. This 2013 guidance provides 

recommendations for air agencies’ development and 

the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 

primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

14For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

15EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

16See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA issued the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 12 to provide states with up-todate guidance for Lead infrastructure 

SIPs. Within this guidance, EPA 

describes the duty of states to make 

infrastructure SIP submissions to meet 

basic structural SIP requirements within 

three years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions. The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.13

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.14 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.15

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.16

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Mississippi infrastructure 

submission addresses the provisions of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described 

below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures: Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provides 

an overview of the provisions of the 

Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) 

regulations relevant to air quality 

control. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–17(h) (Appendix A–9) 

and Sections APC–S–1—Air Emission 

Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, and APC–S–3— 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, provide 

the MDEQ with the authority to adopt, 

modify, or repeal ambient air quality 

standards and emission standards for 

the state under such conditions as the 

Mississippi Commission on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68653 

17On February 22, 2013, EPA published a 

proposed action in the Federal Register entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule.’’ 78 FR 12459. 

18On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR Part 58. 

Environmental Quality (Commission) 

may prescribe for the prevention, 

control, and abatement of pollution. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the above provisions 

and Mississippi’s practices are adequate 

to protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the 

State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future.17 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing State rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: SIPs are 

required to provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data, 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–17(g) (Appendix A–9), 

provides MDEQ with the necessary 

statutory authority to collect and 

disseminate information relating to air 

quality and pollution and the 

prevention, control, supervision, and 

abatement thereof. Annually, States 

develop and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. The 

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.18 On June 

26, 2013 with an addendum on August 

27, 2013, Mississippi submitted its 

monitoring network plan to EPA, which 

was approved on November 22, 2013. 

Mississippi’s approved monitoring 

network plan can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0270. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system 

requirements related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR): In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for enforcement of 

emission limits and control measures, 

the regulation of minor sources and 

modifications, and the enforcement of 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) emission 

limits to assist in the protection of air 

quality in nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. To meet these 

obligations, Sections APC–S–5— 

Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality and APC–S–2—Permit 

Regulation for the Construction and/or 

Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, 

both of which pertain to the 

construction of any new major 

stationary source or any project at an 

existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

Enforcement: MDEQ’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of VOC and 

NOX emission limits and control 

measures and construction permitting 

for new or modified stationary sources. 

Preconstruction PSD permitting for 

major sources: With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements and instead will act 

on this portion of the submission in a 

separate action. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR permitting program at APC–S–2, I. 

D—Permitting Requirements that 

regulates the preconstruction permitting 

of modifications and construction of 

minor stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for enforcement 

of control measures and regulation of 

minor sources and modifications related 

to the Lead NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii): Interstate 

and international transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these 

components have two subparts resulting 

in four distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

insuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state. The physical 

properties of lead prevent lead emission 

from experiencing that same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 and 

ozone for interstate transport as outlined 

in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, 

there is a sharp decrease in lead 

concentrations, at least in the coarse 

fraction, as the distance from a lead 

source increases. EPA believes that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

19EPA’s experience also suggests that sources 

located more than two miles from the state border 

generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly 

to the nonattainment in another state. 

20Mississippi’s October 11, 2012, infrastructure 

SIP submission only addressed compliance with 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128 

requirements. On May 8, 2014, Mississippi clarified 

to EPA that the provisions submitted in the October 

11, 2012, SIP submission to comply with 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP were also intended to cover the 2008 Lead and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

21EPA took similar action with respect to 

Mississippi’s section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be 

satisfied through a state’s assessment as 

to whether a lead source located within 

its State in close proximity to a state 

border has emissions that contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the neighboring state. For 

example, EPA’s experience with the 

initial Lead designations suggest that 

sources that emit less than 0.5 tpy 

generally appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state.19 Mississippi has no Lead 

sources that have emissions of Lead 

over 0.5 tons per year (tpy). Therefore, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements and instead will act 

on this portion of the submission in a 

separate action. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

visibility sub-element, referred to as 

prong 4, significant impacts from lead 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source. The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that it 

is anticipated that lead emissions will 

contribute only negligibly to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas. Lead 

stationary sources in Mississippi are 

located distances from Class I areas such 

that visibility impacts are negligible. 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal cites its SIP revision regarding 

the Regional Haze Program 

Requirements (Appendix R) to satisfy its 

obligations under prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). Mississippi also notes 

that the States does not have any lead 

sources with emissions equal to or 

greater than 0.5 tons per year. Therefore, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

the Mississippi SIP meets the relevant 

visibility requirements of prong 4 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Section APC–S–2—Permit Regulations 

for the Construction and/or Operation of 

Air Emissions Equipment, provides how 

MDEQ will notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from new or modified 

sources consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. EPA is 

unaware of any pending obligations for 

the state of Mississippi pursuant to 

sections 115 and 126. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority: Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires that each 

implementation plan provide (i) 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out its 

implementation plan, (ii) that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State Boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s SIP 

as meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i)and (iii). EPA is proposing 

to approve in part and disapprove in 

part Mississippi’s SIP respecting section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposals respecting each 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in 

turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

that Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 

49–17–17(d) and 49–17–17(h) 

(Appendix A–9), provide MDEQ with 

the authority to accept and administer 

laws and grants from the federal 

government and from other sources, 

public and private, for carrying out any 

of its functions, including its 

responsibility to implement its SIP. As 

further evidence of the adequacy of 

MDEQ’s resources with respect to subelements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a 

letter to Mississippi on March 28, 2014, 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

the current status of these commitments 

for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA 

submitted to Mississippi can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0270. Annually, states update these 

grant commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. Mississippi satisfactorily met 

all commitments agreed to in the Air 

Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2013, 

therefore Mississippi’s grants were 

finalized and closed out. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Mississippi has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

To meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act. 

Section 128 of the CAA requires that 

states include provisions in their SIP to 

address conflicts of interest for state 

boards or bodies that oversee CAA 

permits and enforcement orders and 

disclosure of conflict of interest 

requirements. Specifically, CAA section 

128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall 

require that at least a majority of any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders shall be subject to 

the described public interest service and 

income restrictions therein. Subsection 

128(a)(2) requires that the members of 

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. 

To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

obligations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission cites the State’s revision to 

its SIP to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 128 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, which was submitted to EPA 

on October 11, 2012.20 Based upon the 

review of the laws and provisions 

contained in MDEQ’s October 11, 2012, 

SIP revision, which have since been 

incorporated into the SIP, EPA is 

proposing to approve the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to the public interest 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

the conflict of interest disclosure 

provisions of section 128(a)(2). EPA is 

also proposing to disapprove the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portion of the 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

pertains to compliance with the 

significant portion of income 

requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.21

With respect to the public interest 

requirement of section 128(a)(1) and the 

adequate disclosure of conflicts of 

interest requirement of section 128(a)(2), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68655 

EPA has previously found these 

requirements to be satisfied by the 

existing provisions in Mississippi’s SIP. 

See 78 FR 20793. 

With respect to the significant portion 

of income requirement of section 

128(a)(1), the provisions included in the 

October 11, 2012 infrastructure SIP 

submission did not preclude at least a 

majority of the members of the 

Mississippi Board from receiving a 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders issued by the 

Mississippi Boards. While the submitted 

laws and provisions preclude members 

of the Mississippi Boards from certain 

types of income (e.g., contracts with 

State or political subdivisions thereof, 

or income obtained through the use of 

his or her public office or obtained to 

influence a decision of the Mississippi 

Boards), they do not preclude a majority 

of members of the Mississippi Boards 

from deriving any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders so long as 

that income is not derived from one of 

the proscribed methods described in the 

laws and provisions submitted by the 

State. Because a majority of board 

members may still derive a significant 

portion of income from persons subject 

to permits or enforcement orders issued 

by the Mississippi Boards, the 

Mississippi SIP does not meet the 

section 128(a)(1) majority requirements 

respecting significant portion of income, 

and as such, EPA is today proposing to 

disapprove the State’s 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as it relates only to this 

portion of section 128(a)(1). 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as it relates to the public 

interest requirements of section 

128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest 

disclosure provisions of section 

128(a)(2), and is proposing to 

disapprove Mississippi’s section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it pertains 

to compliance with the significant 

portion of income requirements of 

section 128(a)(1) for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system: Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

how the State establishes requirements 

for compliance testing by emissions 

sampling and analysis, and for 

emissions and operation monitoring to 

ensure the quality of data in the State. 

These requirements are met by Section 

APC–S–2—Permit Regulations for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment and Mississippi 

Code 49, Section 49–17–21 (Appendix 

A–9), which provides MDEQ with the 

authority to require the maintenance of 

records related to the operation of air 

contaminant sources and provides any 

authorized representative of the 

Mississippi Commission on 

Environmental Quality with authority to 

examine and copy any such records or 

memoranda pertaining to the operation 

of such contaminant source. Section 

APC–S–2 also lists the requirements for 

compliance testing which is included in 

any MDEQ air pollution air permit. 

Section APC–S–1 authorizes source 

owners or operators to use any credible 

evidence or information relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, for the purpose of 

submitting compliance certifications. 

Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Mississippi SIP. 

Additionally, Mississippi is required 

to submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and their associated 

precursors—NOX, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and VOCs. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Mississippi 

made its latest update to the 2012 NEI 

on January 9, 2014. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(F). 

7. 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes: 

This section of the CAA requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Mississippi 

cites Section APC–S–3—Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes and 

Mississippi Code Title 49, 49–17–27 

(Appendix A–9), as providing the State 

with the authority to identify air 

pollution emergency events and to 

implement preplanned abatement 

strategies in response to such events. 

This regulation and statute further 

prevent the excessive buildup of air 

pollutants during air pollution episodes. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for emergency 

powers related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions: 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission cites Mississippi Code Title 

49, Section 49–17–17(h) (Appendix A– 

9), as providing MDEQ with the 

authority to adopt air quality rules and 

revise SIPs as needed to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS in the State. The 

infrastructure SIP submission as cites 

this statute as providing MDEQ with the 

statutory authority to revise the SIP to 

accommodate changes to the NAAQS 

and revise the SIP if the EPA 

Administrator finds the plan to be 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for meeting the 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, and 

visibility protection requirements of 

part C of the Act. With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting, EPA is 

not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements and 

instead will act on these portions of the 

submission in a separate action. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 Consultation): This 

requirement is met through Section 

APC–S–5—Mississippi Regulations for 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality and 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(c) (Appendix A–9), along with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the State’s SIP revisions, such as the 

Regional Haze SIP revision, which 

allows for consultation between 

appropriate state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies as well as the 

corresponding Federal Land Managers 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

meets applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. 

Public notification (127 Public 

Notification): These requirements are 

met through Section APC–S–3— 

Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes, which requires that MDEQ 

notify the public of any air pollution 

alert, warning, or emergency. The 

MDEQ Web site also provides air quality 

summary data, air quality index reports, 

and links to more information regarding 

public awareness of measures that can 

prevent such exceedances and of ways 

in which the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve 

air quality. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. 

Visibility protection: Proposed 

approval of Mississippi’s 

implementation plan respecting prong 4 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the SIP 

contain adequate provisions to protect 

visibility (referred to as ‘‘prong 4’’) in 

Mississippi. The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that 

EPA does not generally treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of 

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under Part C of 

the Act (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). However, in the event of the 

establishment of a new primary 

NAAQS, the visibility protection and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, EPA 

concludes there are no new applicable 

visibility protection obligations under 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, and as such, EPA is 

proposing to approve section 110(a)(2)(J) 

of MDEQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submission as it relates to visibility 

protection. 

10. 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality and 

modeling/data: Sections APC–S–2, 

Section V.B.—Permit Regulation for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment and APC–S–5— 

Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality, specify that required air 

modeling be conducted in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W 

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models,’’ as 

incorporated into the Mississippi SIP. 

These standards demonstrate that 

Mississippi has the authority to perform 

air quality monitoring and to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Additionally, Mississippi supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the Lead 

NAAQS, for the southeastern states. 

Taken as a whole, Mississippi’s air 

quality regulations and practices 

demonstrate that MDEQ has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide for air quality 

and modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. 

11. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: This 

element necessitates that the SIP require 

the owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under the CAA, a 

fee sufficient to cover (i) The reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

To satisfy these requirements, 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission cites Mississippi Code Title 

49, Section 49–2–9(c) (Appendix A–9), 

which authorizes MDEQ to apply for, 

receive, and expend Federal or state 

funds in order to operate its air 

programs; Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–30 (Appendix A–9), 

which provides for the assessment of 

title V permit fees to cover the 

reasonable cost of reviewing and acting 

upon permitting air permitting activities 

in the state including title V, PSD and 

NNSR permits; and, Mississippi Code 

Title 49, Section 49–17–14 (Appendix 

A–9), which allows MDEQ to expend or 

utilize monies in the Mississippi Air 

Operating Permit Program Fee Trust 

Fund to pay all reasonable direct and 

indirect costs associated with the 

development and administration of the 

title V program including, but not 

limited to, the reasonable costs of 

performing activities related to the title 

V program. These funding mechanisms 

reflect the reasonable cost of review, 

approval, implementation, and 

enforcement of the state’s air permitting 

program. The title V operating program 

fees also cover the reasonable cost of 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD permits after they have been 

issued. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi 

adequately provides for permitting fees 

related to the Lead NAAQS, when 

necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 49– 

17–17(c) and 49–17–19(b) (Appendix 

A–9), requires that MDEQ notify the 

public of an application, preliminary 

determination, the activity or activities 

involved in the permit action, any 

emissions change associated with any 

permit modification, and the 

opportunity for comment prior to 

making a final permitting decision. 

Additionally, MDEQ works closely with 

local political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze SIP. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when 

necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) 

and (J) and the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 

approve that MDEQ’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, submitted November 17, 

2011, for the 2008 Lead NAAQS has met 

the above-described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove in part section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission because a 

majority of board members may still 

derive a significant portion of income 

from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders issued by the 

Mississippi Boards, therefore, its current 

SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) 

majority requirements respecting 

significant portion of income. This 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68657 

proposed approval in part and 

disapproval in part, does not include 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and 

(J). EPA will address these portions of 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

in a separate action. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

call) starts a sanctions clock. The 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

VI. 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. 

See 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 proposed 

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 proposed 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, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27268 Filed 11–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 13–184; FCC 14–99] 

Modernization of the Schools and 

Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule, correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of a Federal Register document 

regarding the Commission taking major 

steps to modernize the E-rate program 

(more formally known as the schools 

and libraries universal service support 

mechanism). The Commission sought 

further comment on meeting the future 

funding needs of the E-rate program in 

light of the goals it adopted for the 

program in an accompanying Report 

and Order. The Commission 

acknowledges that modernizing a 

program of this size and scope cannot be 

accomplished at once and so it will 

continue to seek public input and 

additional ideas to bring 21st Century 

broadband to libraries and schools 

throughout the country. The document 

was published in the Federal Register 

on August 19, 2014. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49036) is 

corrected as of November 18, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Bachtell or Kate Dumouchel, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, at (202) 418–7400 or TTY: 

(202) 418–0484. 

Correction 

In proposed rule FR Doc. 2014–18936, 

beginning on page 49036 (August 19, 

2014), make the following corrections in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

1. On page 49037, in the first column, 

in paragraph 3, thirtieth line, remove 

the word ‘‘programs’’ and add in its 

place the word ‘‘program’s.’’ 

2. On page 49039, in the third 

column, in paragraph 19, fifth line, 

remove the words ‘‘E-rate 

Modernization Order’’ and add in its 

place the words ‘‘Report and Order.’’ 

3. On page 49040, in the first column, 

in paragraph 22, remove the word 

‘‘5000’’ and add in its place the word 

‘‘5,000.’’ 

4. On page 49041, in the second 

column, in paragraph 33, twelfth line, 

remove the word ‘‘we.’’ 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25522 Filed 11–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS