Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40975 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Four), 

July 22, 2021 (Petition). 

2See Docket No. RM2009–10, Order on 

Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting 

(Proposals Three through Nineteen), November 13, 

2009 (Order No. 339); Petition, Proposal Four at 1. 

I. Introduction 

On July 22, 2021, the Postal Service 

filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 

3050.11 requesting that the Commission 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 

consider changes to analytical 

principles relating to periodic reports.1

The Petition identifies the proposed 

analytical changes filed in this docket as 

Proposal Four. 

II. Proposal Four 

Background. The Postal Service 

currently develops the distribution 

factors used for the Special Purpose 

Route (SPR) city carrier cost pools based 

on manual data collection through the 

City Carrier Costing System SPR 

subsystem (CCCS–SPR). The 

Commission approved the use of this 

subsystem in Order No. 339, and it has 

been used each year since FY 2009.2

Proposal. With Proposal Four, the 

Postal Service seeks to replace the 

CCCS–SPR subsystem with a new 

system called the Special Purpose 

Carrier Cost System (SPCCS). The Postal 

Service cites two objectives for this new 

system: ‘‘to replace manual sampling 

with scan data from Product Tracking 

and Reporting (PTR) combined with the 

clock rings from the Time and 

Attendance Collection System (TACS)’’ 

and to ‘‘separate the weekday SPR cost 

pool into peak and non-peak pools and 

provide separate distribution factors for 

each cost pool.’’ Petition, Proposal Four 

at 2. 

With respect to the first objective, the 

Postal Service plans to use PTR delivery 

scans that occur within time blocks 

when a city carrier is clocked to 

Management Operating Data System 

(MODS) Operating Codes specific to 

Special Purpose Routes. Id. The Postal 

Service proposes to use a sample of time 

blocks ‘‘[d]ue to the disproportionate 

resources required to obtain a complete 

nationwide census.’’ Id. 

Regarding the second objective, the 

Postal Service proposes to disaggregate 

the volume variabilities used for the 

SPR Monday through Saturday cost pool 

in order to create separate non-peak and 

peak weekday SPR cost pools. Id. at 3. 

The Postal Service also proposes annual 

updates to the hours used to weight the 

new weekday non-peak SPR cost pool 

variabilities. Id. 

Impact. The impacts of Proposal Four 

are outlined in Table 1 of the proposal. 

Id. at 7. The most significant change in 

unit costs is a decrease of $0.1743 for 

Collect on Delivery Service. Id. The unit 

cost of USPS Marketing Mail Parcels 

would increase by $0.0151, from $0.238 

to $0.254 per unit. Id. The unit cost for 

total domestic market dominant services 

would decrease by $0.0144 per unit. Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2021–7 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal Four no later than 

August 23, 2021. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

505, Manon Boudreault is designated as 

an officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraph 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2021–7 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 Four), filed July 22, 

2021. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

August 23, 2021. 

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

Commission appoints Manon 

Boudreault 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. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16294 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 35 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0359; FRL–8699–01– 

R9] 

Clean Air Act Grant; Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District; 

Opportunity for Public Hearing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification; proposed 

determination with request for 

comments and notice of opportunity for 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the reduction in expenditures of 

non-Federal funds for the Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) in support of its continuing 

air program under section 105 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), for the calendar 

year 2020 are a result of non-selective 

reductions in expenditures. This 

determination, when final, will permit 

the SBCAPCD to receive grant funding 

for fiscal year (FY) 2021 from the EPA 

under section 105 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments and/or requests for a 

public hearing must be received by the 

EPA at the address stated below on or 

before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2021–0359 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Proprietary Business Information (PBI) 

or Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Latigue, EPA Region IX, Grants 

and Program Integration Office, Air 

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105; phone at (415) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
40976 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

947–4170 or email address at 

latigue.angela@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

105 of the CAA provides grant funding 

for the continuing air programs of 

eligible state, local, and tribal agencies. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 35.145(a), 

the Regional Administrator may provide 

air pollution control agencies up to 

three-fifths of the approved costs of 

implementing programs for the 

prevention and control of air pollution. 

CAA Section 105 grants require a cost 

share (also referred to as a match 

requirement) and a maintenance of 

effort (MOE). An eligible agency must 

meet a minimum 40% match. In 

addition, to remain eligible for section 

105 funds, an eligible agency must meet 

an MOE requirement under section 

105(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405. 

Program activities relevant to the 

match consist of both recurring and 

non-recurring (unique, one-time only) 

expenses. The MOE provision requires 

that a state or local agency spend at least 

the same dollar level of funds as it did 

in the previous grant year, but only for 

the costs of recurring activities. 

Specifically, section 105(c)(1) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(1), provides 

that, ‘‘No agency shall receive any grant 

under this section during any fiscal year 

when its expenditures of non-Federal 

funds for recurrent expenditures for air 

pollution control programs will be less 

than its expenditures were for such 

programs during the preceding fiscal 

year.’’ However, pursuant to CAA 

section 105(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7405(c)(2), 

the EPA may still award a grant to an 

agency not meeting the requirements of 

section 105(c)(1), ‘‘. . . if the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, 

determines that a reduction in 

expenditures is attributable to a nonselective reduction in the expenditures 

in the programs of all Executive branch 

agencies of the applicable unit of 

Government.’’ These statutory 

requirements are repeated in the EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

35.140–35.148. The EPA issued 

additional guidance to recipients on 

what constitutes a nonselective 

reduction on September 30, 2011. In 

consideration of legislative history, the 

guidance clarified that a non-selective 

reduction does not necessarily mean 

that each Executive branch agency 

needs to be reduced in equal proportion. 

However, it must be clear to the EPA, 

from the weight of evidence, that a 

recipient’s CAA-related air program is 

not being disproportionately impacted 

or singled out for a reduction. 

A section 105 grant recipient must 

submit a final federal financial report no 

later than 90 days from the close of its 

grant period that documents all of its 

federal and non-federal expenditures for 

the completed period. The recipient 

seeking an adjustment to its MOE for 

that period must provide the rationale 

and the documentation necessary to 

enable the EPA to determine that a 

nonselective reduction has occurred. In 

order to expedite that determination, the 

recipient must provide details of the 

budget action and the comparative fiscal 

impacts on all the jurisdiction’s 

executive branch agencies, the recipient 

agency itself, and the agency’s air 

program. The recipient should identify 

any executive branch agencies or 

programs that should be excepted from 

comparison and explain why. The 

recipient must provide evidence that the 

air program is not being singled out for 

a reduction or being disproportionately 

reduced. Documentation in key areas 

will be needed: Budget data specific to 

the recipient’s air program, and 

comparative budget data between the 

recipient’s air program, the agency 

containing the air program, and the 

other executive branch agencies. The 

EPA may also request information from 

the recipient about how impacts on its 

program operations will affect its ability 

to meet its CAA obligations and 

requirements; and documentation that 

explains the cause of the reduction, 

such as legislative changes or the 

issuance of a new executive order. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the EPA 

awarded the SBCAPCD $519,277, which 

represented approximately 7% of the 

SBCAPCD budget. In FY2021, the EPA 

intends to award the SBCAPCD 

approximately $522,315, which 

represents approximately 7% of the 

SBCAPCD budget. 

SBCAPCD’s final federal financial 

report for FY2019 indicated that 

SBCAPCD’s MOE level was $8,551,345. 

SBCAPCD’s final federal financial report 

for FY2020 indicates that SBCAPCD’s 

MOE level is at $7,890,365. The reduced 

MOE is not sufficient to meet the MOE 

requirements under the CAA Section 

105 because it is not equal to or greater 

than the MOE for the previous fiscal 

year. 

In order for the SBCAPCD to be 

eligible to receive its FY2021 CAA 

section 105 grant, the EPA must make 

a determination (after notice and an 

opportunity for a public hearing) that 

the reduction in expenditures is 

attributable to a non-selective reduction 

in the expenditures in the programs of 

the SBCAPCD. 

The SBCAPCD is a single-purpose air 

pollution control agency. It is the unit 

of government for CAA section 105(c)(2) 

purposes. 

On March 25, 2021, the SBCAPCD 

submitted a request to the EPA seeking 

a reduction for the required MOE for 

FY2020. The SBCAPCD explained that 

it was unable to meet its MOE 

requirement due in large part to a 

budget increase of 21.1% from passthrough monies from the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) for multiple 

state projects. The State Legislature, 

through the budget adoption process, 

placed a strong emphasis on the use of 

funding for voluntary emission 

reduction programs through the network 

of local air districts. This action resulted 

in a total of over $2.7 million for Santa 

Barbara County projects in FY2019– 

2020, a 21.1% budget increase received 

from the previous fiscal year. These 

funds were used to continue expanding 

the reach of the grant programs initiated 

in FY2018–2019, including the Carl 

Moyer program, Community Air 

Protection legislation (AB617), the 

Funding Agricultural Replacement 

Measures for Emissions Reductions 

(FARMER) program, and the Wood 

Smoke Reduction program. In addition, 

the District experienced a significant 

reduction in filling vacant positions due 

to the conditions caused by the COVID– 

19 pandemic. The following table 

illustrates the District’s actual 

expenditures from Federal Fiscal Years 

(FFY) 2017 through 2020. 

Description Actual 

FFY 17–18 

Actual 

FFY 18–19 Difference Actual FFY 18–19 

Actual 

FFY 19–20 Difference 

Grant Revenues ........................... $594,385 $2,694,441.77 $2,100,056.77 $2,694,441.77 $2,421,089.07 ¥$273,352.70 

Services and Supplies ................. $3,547,624.73 $3,731,165.03 $183,540.30 $3,731,165.03 $4,494,987.02 $763,821.99 

Salaries and Benefits ................... $5,306,547.86 $5,751,339.84 $444,791.98 $5,751,339.84 $5,915,694.33 $164,354.49 

Funded Full Time Equivalents ..... 43 37 ¥6 37 36 ¥1 

Program Cost ............................... $6,776,864 $8,551,345 N/A $8,551,345 $7,890,365 N/A 

EPA Funding ................................ $497,683 $508,027 N/A $508,027 $519,277 N/A 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40977 

Description Actual 

FFY 17–18 

Actual 

FFY 18–19 Difference Actual FFY 18–19 

Actual 

FFY 19–20 Difference 

Non-Recurrent Expenses ............. $1,925,596 $1,986,234 $60,638 $1,986,234 $3,349,440 $1,363,206 

Total Program Cost .............. $9,200,143 $11,045,606 N/A $11,045,606 $11,759,083 N/A 

Amount Over/Under MOE Goal * $34,940 $1,774,481 .......................... $1,774,481 ¥$660,979 ..........................

The request for a reset of SBCAPCD’s 

MOE meets the requirements for a nonselective reduction determination. The 

SBCAPCD’s MOE reduction resulted 

from a loss of revenues due to a 

significant cut back on expenditures 

caused by the current COVID–19 

pandemic, the inability to fill vacant 

positions created by retirements, and 

the addition of State funding for grant 

pass-throughs, which increased the 

SBCAPCD’s grant non-recurring activity. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

the SBCAPCD lower the FY2020 MOE 

level to $7,790,365 to meet the CAA 

section 105(c)(2) criteria as it resulted 

from a non-selective reduction of 

expenditures. 

This notice constitutes a request for 

public comment and an opportunity for 

public hearing as required by the CAA. 

All written comments received by 

August 30, 2021 on this proposal will be 

considered. The EPA will conduct a 

public hearing on this proposal only if 

a written request for such is received by 

the EPA by August 30, 2021. If no 

written request for a hearing is received, 

the EPA will proceed to the final 

determination. While notice of the final 

determination will not be published in 

the Federal Register, copies of the 

determination can be obtained by 

sending a written request to Angela 

Latigue at the above address. 

Dated: July 8, 2021. 

Elizabeth Adams, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15843 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2021–0360; FRL–8707–01– 

R7] 

Air Plan Approval; Approval of 

Missouri Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Revisions to St. Louis 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Missouri on November 12, 2019, 

revising the 2008 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan previously approved 

by EPA on September 20, 2018, 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS), the 1979 1- 

Hour and 1997 8-Hour ozone standards 

in the St. Louis area. This revision states 

that the St. Louis area no longer needs 

to rely on the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program, and 

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) for 

continued maintenance throughout the 

maintenance period for the 2008 8-Hour 

ozone NAAQS, the 1979 1-Hour ozone 

NAAQS and 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine 

that this revision meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2021–0360 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Brown, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; 

telephone number: (913) 551–7718; 

email address: brown.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Written Comments 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

IV. What action is the EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2021– 

0360, at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

The EPA is proposing to approve SIP 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Missouri on November 12, 2019, 

revising the 2008 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan previously approved 

on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47572). 

This SIP revision demonstrates 

continued maintenance of the 2008 8- 

Hour ozone NAAQS, the 1979 1-Hour 

ozone NAAQS and 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS in the St. Louis area through 

the future year of 2030. Since the 2008 

ozone standard is more stringent than 

the 1979 and 1997 ozone standards, and 

the boundary area for all three 

designations are identical, Missouri is 

requesting through this SIP revision to 

also replace the previously approved 

maintenance plans under those older 

standards. The maintenance boundary 

for these three standards includes the 

Missouri counties of Franklin, Jefferson, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1