### 50816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

4 The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Annual Compliance Report, USPS–FY14–32 and two additional files attached electronically. C. Rationale

The Postal Service’s rationale for Proposal Ten is that clerk costs in Cost Segment 4 have increased recently as clerks are appointed or assigned to former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. Moreover, because the CAG criterion using revenue amount to define Cost Segment 4 is sufficiently different from the transaction volumes used in POStPlan to designate post offices for reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not a valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Id. The Postal Service further says the cost classification rationale for Cost Segment 4 is similar to Cost Segment 3 cost components because CAG K and L clerks perform a corresponding mix of activities such as mail processing, window service, and administrative components. However, Cost Segment 4 has limited IOCS sample data and some products have no Cost Segment 4 tallies, which results in zero measured costs in a given year.

The Postal Service concludes that incorporating Cost Segment 4 costs with other post office costs would be a more reliable analysis for cost attribution and in line with Cost Segment 3 methodology. It would result in a better assessment of clerk costs and avoid distortions from analyzing Cost Segment 4 separately. Id.

Proposal Ten includes a table demonstrating the impact of merging Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment 3 costs by product. It shows a cost difference from a merger of $1,412,000 out of $12,945,185,000 or a 0.01 percent difference. 4 Id. at 6.

III. Initial Commission Action

The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015–19 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 and Proposal Ten no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding. IV. Ordering Paragraphs

It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015–19 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), filed August 12, 2015.

2. Comments are due no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28,
2015.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register

.

By the Commission. Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–20633 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0564; FRL–9932–82– Region 7]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of**  **Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Kansas submitted on March 30, 2015. This SIPrevision provides Kansas’ statedetermined allowance allocations for existing electric generating units (EGUs) in the State for the 2016 control periods and replaces the allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods established by EPA under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states to reduce the transport of pollution that significantly affects downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas’ SIP revision, incorporate the state-determined allocations for the 2016 control periods into the SIP, and amend the regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflectapproval and inclusion of the statedetermined allocations. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas’ SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and the CSAPR requirements to replace EPA’s allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. This action is being proposed pursuant to the CAA and its implementing regulations. EPA’s allocations of CSAPR trading program allowances for Kansas for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined allowance allocations for those control periods through another SIP revision. The CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place until such time as the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision.

**DATES :**  Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 21, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2015–0564, by mail to Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the **ADDRESSES** section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7214 or by email at kemp.lachala@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that


### 50817 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register

. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides.

Dated: August 12, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2015–20628 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0537; FRL–9932–54- Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District**  **of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2006**  **24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia addressing the infrastructure requirements for interstate transport pollution with respect to the 2006 24- hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the District’s SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received in writing by September 21, 2015. **ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2015–0537 by one of the following methods:

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0537, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2015– 0537. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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.

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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Emlyn Ve  ́ lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication.

Dated: August 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015–20526 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 300**

**[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0009; FRL—9932– 76–Region 4]** 

**National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency**  **Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum**  **Superfund Site**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule; notice of intent.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site (Site) located in Hawesville in Hancock County, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM), have determined