Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-05-25 · Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

45,320 words·~206 min read·/register/2007/05/25/07-2630

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 234 [DoD-2006-OS-0031; 0790-AI09] Conduct on the Pentagon Reservation AGENCY: Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule administrative revises DoD policy concerning conduct on the Pentagon Reservation and Raven Rock Mountain Complex. In 2003, Congress amended 10 U.S.C. 2674(g) so that the “Pentagon Reservation” also included the land and physical facilities at the Raven Rock Mountain Complex.
Given this amendment, the Department has recognized the need to amend rules and regulations under 32 CFR Part 234 so that they are applicable to Raven Rock Mountain Complex. Therefore, minor and administrative changes to the rules and regulations were necessary. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Brazis, Office of General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon Room 1D197, Washington, DC 20301-1155. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Justification for Final Rule Because the amendments and revisions to this final rule are only administrative in nature, it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to precede it with a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment. The administrative corrections described in this rule are necessary to make the rules applicable to Raven Rock Mountain Complex, which is now part of the Pentagon Reservation. The additional changes are nonsubstantive in nature.
Therefore, the Department finds that there is good cause under section 553(b)(3)(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.* ) to make these corrections and changes without first issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. For the same reasons, the Department finds that there is good cause under section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act to make this final rule effective immediately. The Department has identified six sections requiring minor changes and has recognized the need to add one additional section.
The first change is in the definition of “Authorized person” in § 234.1. The definition of “Authorized person” now refers to an employee or agent of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, formerly known as the Defense Protective Service. The second change is in the definition of “Pentagon Reservation” under § 234.1. Because Raven Rock Mountain Complex is now considered part of the “Pentagon Reservation,” as specified in 10 U.S.C. 2674(g), the description of the area of land known as Raven Rock Mountain Complex was added to the definition of “Pentagon Reservation” under § 234.1.
The third change is the amendment of the language of § 234.3. In § 234.3(d), the Department added “Installation Commander” to the list of authorized personnel who can review applications for permits for certain activities on the Pentagon Reservation, including Raven Rock Mountain Complex. Raven Rock Mountain Complex is under the custody and control of an “Installation Commander.” The fourth change is the amendment of the language of § 234.8. This section prohibited willfully destroying or damaging private and government property.
The word “and” was changed to “or” to prohibit damaging private or government property on the Pentagon Reservation. Courts have misconstrued this section to only prohibit the destroying or damaging of both private and government property, but not such property individually. The fifth change is the amendment to § 234.9. Previously, this section prohibited using or possessing fireworks or firecrackers, except with permission of the Pentagon Building Management Office. The amendment seeks to prohibit using or possessing such items entirely.
Furthermore, the words “Installation Commander” were added to paragraphs 234.9
(a)and
(c)as authorized personnel who can review applications for permits for certain activities on the Pentagon Reservation, including Raven Rock Mountain Complex. The sixth change is an amendment to the language of § 234.10. “Defense Protective Service” was changed to “Pentagon Force Protection Agency or the Installation Commander” as the agency or person who can authorize carrying of a weapon at the Pentagon or Raven Rock Mountain Complex. The seventh change is an amendment to the language of § 234.11. “Defense Protective Service” was changed to “Pentagon Force Protection Agency”. In addition, the word “Installation Commander” was added as a person who can authorize the use of alcoholic beverages for certain events at Raven Rock Mountain Complex. The eighth change is a revision to § 234.15, governing the use of visual and recording devices. Previously, the use of cameras and visual recording devices was prohibited in restricted areas or in internal offices without the approval of the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. This section was revised to prohibit all photography on the Pentagon Reservation and Raven Rock Mountain Complex without approval of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, the Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Furthermore, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the Pentagon Reservation and Raven Rock Mountain Complex without first obtaining the necessary permission. The ninth change is a revision to § 234.18. Previously, parking regulations were enforced in accordance with Administrative Instruction
(AI)Number 88. 1 This document has been renamed “The Pentagon Parking Program.” This section was revised to reflect that change. In addition, the word “Installation Commander” was added to the list of personnel that can authorize new parking regulations or restrictions at the Pentagon and at Raven Rock Mountain Complex. 1 Copies may be obtained at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins2.html.* It has been certified that this rule is not a significant rule as defined under section 3(f)(1) through 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. Further, it has been certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only those entities and persons who are on the Pentagon Reservation. Finally, it has been certified that this rule does not impose any reporting or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Accordingly, chapter I of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301 is amended by revising part 234 to read as follows: PART 234—CONDUCT ON THE PENTAGON RESERVATION Sec. 234.1 Definitions. 234.2 Applicability. 234.3 Admission to property. 234.4 Trespassing. 234.5 Compliance with official signs. 234.6 Interfering with agency functions. 234.7 Disorderly conduct. 234.8 Preservation of property. 234.9 Explosives. 234.10 Weapons. 234.11 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances. 234.12 Restriction on animals. 234.13 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection. 234.14 Posting of materials. 234.15 Use of visual recording devices. 234.16 Gambling. 234.17 Vehicles and traffic safety. 234.18 Enforcement of parking regulations. 234.19 Penalties and effect on other laws. Authority: 10 U.S.C. 131 and 2674(c). § 234.1 Definitions. As used in this part. *Authorized person* . An employee or agent of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, or any other Department of Defense employee or agent who has delegated authority to enforce the provisions of this part. *Operator* . A person who operates, drives, controls, otherwise has charge of, or is in actual physical control of a mechanical mode of transportation or any other mechanical equipment. *Pentagon Reservation* . Area of land and improvements thereon, located in Arlington, Virginia, on which the Pentagon Office Building, Federal Building Number 2, the Pentagon heating and sewage treatment plants, and other related facilities are located. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 674, the Pentagon Reservation also includes the area of land known as Raven Rock Mountain Complex (“RRMC”), located in Adams County, Pennsylvania, and Site “C,” which is located in Washington County, Maryland, and other related facilities. The Pentagon Reservation shall include all roadways, walkways, waterways, and all areas designated for the parking of vehicles. *Permit* . A written authorization to engage in uses or activities that are otherwise prohibited, restricted, or regulated. *Possession* . Exercising direct physical control or dominion, with or without ownership, over property. *State law* . The applicable and nonconflicting laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, and codes of the state(s) and other political subdivision(s) within whose exterior boundaries the Pentagon Reservation or a portion thereof is located. *Traffic* . Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any road, path, street, or other thoroughfare for the purposes of travel. *Vehicle* . Any vehicle that is self-propelled or designed for self-propulsion, any motorized vehicle, and any vehicle drawn by or designed to be drawn by a motor vehicle, including any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or can be transported or drawn upon a highway, hallway, or pathway; to include any device moved by human or animal power, whether required to be licensed in any state or otherwise. *Weapons* . Any loaded or unloaded pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other device which is designed to, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the ignition of a propellant, by compressed gas, or by spring power; any bow and arrow, crossbow, blowgun, spear gun, hand-thrown spear, slingshot, irritant gas device, explosive device, or any other implement designed to discharge missiles; any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate that is used for or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, including any weapon the possession of which is prohibited under the laws of the state in which the Pentagon Reservation or portion thereof is located; except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length. § 234.2 Applicability. The provisions of this part apply to all areas, lands, and waters on or adjoining the Pentagon Reservation and under the jurisdiction of the United States, and to all persons entering in or on the property. They supplement those penal provisions of Title 18, United States Code, relating to crimes and criminal procedure and those provisions of State law that are federal criminal offenses by virtue of the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13. § 234.3 Admission to property.
(a)Access to the Pentagon Reservation or facilities thereon shall be restricted in accordance with AI Number 30 2 and other applicable Department of Defense rules and regulations in order to ensure the orderly and secure conduct of Department of Defense business. Admission to facilities or restricted areas shall be limited to employees and other persons with proper authorization. Forward written requests for copies of the document to Washington Headquarters Services, Executive Services Division, Freedom of Information Division, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. 2 Copies may be obtained at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins2.html.*
(b)All persons entering or upon the Pentagon Reservation shall, when required and/or requested, display identification to authorized persons.
(c)All packages, briefcases, and other containers brought into, on, or being removed from facilities or restricted areas on the Pentagon Reservation are subject to inspection and search by authorized persons. Persons entering on facilities or restricted areas who refuse to permit an inspection and search will be denied entry.
(d)Any person or organization desiring to conduct activities anywhere on the Pentagon Reservation shall file an application for permit with the applicable Building Management Office or Installation Commander. Such application shall be made on a form provided by the Department of Defense and shall be submitted in the manner specified by the Department of Defense. Violation of the conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the loss of access to the Pentagon Reservation. § 234.4 Trespassing.
(a)Trespassing, entering, or remaining in or upon property not open to the public, except with the express invitation or consent of the person or persons having lawful control of the property, is prohibited. Failure to obey an order to leave under paragraph
(b)of this section, or reentry upon property after being ordered to leave or not reenter under paragraph
(b)of this section, is also prohibited.
(b)Any person who violates a Department of Defense rule or regulation may be ordered to leave the Pentagon Reservation by an authorized person. A violator's reentry may also be prohibited. § 234.5 Compliance with official signs. Persons on the Pentagon Reservation shall at all times comply with official signs of a prohibitory, regulatory, or directory nature. § 234.6 Interfering with agency functions. The following are prohibited:
(a)*Interference* . Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent engaged in an official duty, or on account of the performance of an official duty.
(b)*Violation of a lawful order.* Violating the lawful order of a government employee or agent authorized to maintain order and control public access and movement during fire fighting operations, search and rescue operations, law enforcement actions, and emergency operations that involve a threat to public safety or government resources, or other activities where the control of public movement and activities is necessary to maintain order and public health or safety.
(c)*False information.* Knowingly giving a false or fictitious report or other false information:
(1)To an authorized person investigating an accident or violation of law or regulation, or
(2)On an application for a permit.
(d)*False report.* Knowingly giving a false report for the purpose of misleading a government employee or agent in the conduct of official duties, or making a false report that causes a response by the government to a fictitious event. § 234.7 Disorderly conduct. A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following prohibited acts:
(a)Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior.
(b)Uses language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a display or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(c)Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
(d)Creates or maintains a hazardous or physically offensive condition.
(e)Impedes or threatens the security of persons or property, or disrupts the performance of official duties by Department of Defense employees, or obstructs the use of areas such as entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, concourses, offices, elevators, stairways, roadways, driveways, walkways, or parking lots. § 234.8 Preservation of property. Willfully destroying or damaging private or government property is prohibited. The throwing of articles of any kind from or at buildings or persons, improper disposal of rubbish, and open fires are also prohibited. § 234.9 Explosives.
(a)Using, possessing, storing, or transporting explosives, blasting agents or explosive materials is prohibited, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit issued by the applicable Building Management Office or Installation Commander. When permitted, the use, possession, storage and transportation shall be in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.
(b)Using or possessing fireworks or firecrackers is prohibited.
(c)Violation of the conditions established by the applicable Building Management Office or Installation Commander or of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the loss of access to the Pentagon Reservation. § 234.10 Weapons.
(a)Except as otherwise authorized under this section, the following are prohibited:
(1)Possessing a weapon.
(2)Carrying a weapon.
(3)Using a weapon.
(b)This section does not apply to any agency or Department of Defense component that has received prior written approval from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency or the Installation Commander to carry, transport, or use a weapon in support of a security, law enforcement, or other lawful purpose while on the Pentagon Reservation. § 234.11 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances.
(a)*Alcoholic beverages.* The consumption of alcoholic beverages or the possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage within the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited unless authorized by the Director, Washington Headquarters Services, or his designee, the Installation Commander, or the Heads of the Military Departments, or their designees. Written notice of such authorizations shall be provided to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency.
(b)Controlled substances. The following are prohibited:
(1)The delivery of a controlled substance, except when distribution is made by a licensed physician or pharmacist in accordance with applicable law. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery means the actual, attempted, or constructive transfer of a controlled substance.
(2)The possession of a controlled substance, unless such substance was obtained by the possessor directly from, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order by, a licensed physician or pharmacist, or as otherwise allowed by Federal or State law.
(c)Presence on the Pentagon Reservation when under the influence of alcohol, a drug, a controlled substance, or any combination thereof, to a degree that may endanger oneself or another person, or damage property, is prohibited. § 234.12 Restriction on animals. Animals, except guide dogs for persons with disabilities, shall not be brought upon the Pentagon Reservation for other than official purposes. § 234.13 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection. Commercial or political soliciting, vending of all kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising, collecting private debts or soliciting alms upon the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited. This does not apply to:
(a)National or local drives for funds for welfare, health, or other purposes as authorized by 5 CFR parts 110 and 950, Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Services Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations, issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Executive Order 12353, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 139, as amended.
(b)Personal notices posted on authorized bulletin boards, and in compliance with building rules governing the use of such authorized bulletin boards, advertising to sell or rent property of Pentagon Reservation employees or their immediate families.
(c)Solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by the Department of Defense under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
(d)Licensees, or their agents and employees, with respect to space licensed for their use.
(e)Solicitations conducted by organizations composed of civilian employees of the Department of Defense or members of the uniformed services among their own members for organizational support or for the benefit of welfare funds for their members, after compliance with the requirements of § 234.3(d). § 234.14 Posting of materials. Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or fliers on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited except as provided by § 234.13(b) or when conducted as part of activities approved by the applicable Building Management Office or Installation Commander under § 234.3(d). § 234.15 Use of visual recording devices.
(a)The use of cameras or other visual recording devices on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited, unless the use of such items are approved by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, the Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
(b)It shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the Pentagon Reservation without first obtaining permission of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, Installation Commander, or the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. § 234.16 Gambling. Gambling in any form, or the operation of gambling devices, is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to the vending or exchange of chances by licensed blind operators of vending facilities for any lottery set forth in a State law and authorized by the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107, *et seq.* ). § 234.17 Vehicles and traffic safety.
(a)*In general.* Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this part, traffic and the use of vehicles within the Pentagon Reservation are governed by State law. Violating a provision of State law is prohibited.
(b)*Open container of an alcoholic beverage.*
(1)Each person within a vehicle is responsible for complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to carrying an open container. The operator of a vehicle is the person responsible for complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to the storage of an open container.
(2)Carrying or storing a bottle, can, or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open or has been opened, or whose seal is broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, within a vehicle on the Pentagon Reservation is prohibited.
(3)This section does not apply to:
(i)An open container stored in the trunk of a vehicle or, if a vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, an open container stored in some other portion of the vehicle designed for the storage of luggage and not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or passengers; or
(ii)An open container stored in the living quarters of a motor home or camper.
(4)For the purpose of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, a utility compartment or glove compartment is deemed to be readily accessible to the operator and passengers of a vehicle.
(c)*Operating under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.*
(1)Operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle is prohibited while:
(i)Under the influence of alcohol, a drug or drugs, a controlled substance or controlled substances, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
(ii)The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided, however, that if State law that applies to operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph.
(2)The provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall also apply to an operator who is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol or another drug.
(3)Tests.
(i)At the request or direction of an authorized person who has probable cause to believe that an operator of a vehicle within the Pentagon Reservation has violated a provision of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the operator shall submit to one or more tests of the blood, breath, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol, drug, and controlled substance content.
(ii)Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and may result in detention and citation by an authorized person. Proof of refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
(iii)Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol, drugs, and controlled substances shall be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized person.
(iv)Any test shall be conducted by using accepted scientific methods and equipment of proven accuracy and reliability operated by personnel certified in its use.
(4)Presumptive levels.
(i)The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of this section. If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the time of the testing is less than the alcohol concentration specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, this fact does not give rise to any presumption that the operator is or is not under the influence of alcohol.
(ii)The provisions of paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(i) of this section are not intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the operator, at the time of the alleged violation, was under the influence of alcohol, a drug or drugs, or a controlled substance or controlled substances, or any combination thereof. § 234.18 Enforcement of parking regulations. Parking regulations for the Pentagon Reservation shall be enforced in accordance with the Pentagon Reservation Parking Program and State law; violating such provisions is prohibited. A vehicle parked in any location without authorization, or parked contrary to the directions of posted signs or markings, shall be subject to removal at the owner's risk and expense, in addition to any penalties imposed. The Department of Defense assumes no responsibility for the payment of any fees or costs related to such removal which may be charged to the owner of the vehicle by the towing organization. This section may be supplemented from time to time with the approval of the Director, Washington Headquarters Services, or his designee, or the Installation Commander, by the issuance and posting of such parking directives as may be required, and when so issued and posted such directive shall have the same force and effect as if made a part hereof. § 234.19 Penalties and effect on other laws.
(a)Whoever shall be found guilty of willfully violating any rule or regulation enumerated in this part is subject to the penalties imposed by Federal law for the commission of a Class B misdemeanor offense.
(b)Whoever violates any rule or regulation enumerated in this part is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000.
(c)Nothing in this part shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws. Dated: May 18, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E7-10022 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-012] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. This zone is intended to control the movement of vessels on portions of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor during the Spill of National Significance
(SONS)exercise on June 19 and 20, 2007. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with ships and boats deploying oil containment equipment. DATES: This rule is effective from June 19, 2007 through June 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD09-07-012] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April, 19, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Safety Zone, Great Lake Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 19675). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with ships and boats deploying oil containment equipment. Insufficient time existed to provide full notice, and delaying establishment of the zone would have increased risks to public safety and been contrary to the public interest. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people from hazards associated with numerous vessels deploying oil containment booms and conducting diving operations. Based on the experiences in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that numerous vessels engaged in the deployment of oil containment booms in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels and congested waterways could result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the SONS exercise will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels during the deployment and recovery of oil containment booms in conjunction with the SONS exercise. The safety zone will be enforced between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., each day, on June 19 and 20, 2007. The safety zone for the SONS exercise will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor from the shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 20285) and bounded by a line with of point of origin at 42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W; then west to 42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W; then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of origin (NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard will only enforce this safety zone for 10 hours a day on the two days specified. This safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Captain of the Port will allow vessels to enter and depart Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 and June 20, 2007. The safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only 20 hours. Vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone and enter and depart Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor upon request. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-88-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Proposed Rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165-T09-012 to read as follows: § 165-T09-012 Safety Zone, Great Lake Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, from surface to bottom, from the shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 20285), and bounded by a line with a of point origin at 42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W; then west to 42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W; then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of origin(NAD 83).
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007. This regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: May 16, 2007. Bruce C. Jones Captain, U.S., Coast Guard Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-10146 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 New Standards for Periodicals Mailing Services AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule provides the revisions to *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service* , Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)that we will adopt to support the new Periodicals prices effective on July 15, 2007. The new prices enhance efficiency, offer more choices, and better ensure that all types of Periodicals mail cover their costs. Periodicals mailers have new incentives to use efficient containers and bundles, and copalletization becomes a permanent offering to encourage more publishers to combine mailings. We also add new prices for the nonadvertising portion of a mailing to give mailers of high-editorial-content publications access to lower destination entry rates. EFFECTIVE DATE: 12:01 a.m. on July 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Walker, 202-268-7261; Carrie Witt, 202-268-7279. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service's request in Docket No. R2006-1 included mail classification changes, new pricing structures, and price changes for most domestic mailing services. This final rule provides the revisions to *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service* , Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)that we will adopt to implement the Periodicals portion of the R2006-1 pricing change. We summarize and respond to comments on our previous Periodicals proposal, summarize all major changes since our proposal, update our summary of Periodicals mail, and update our mailing standards. You can find this final rule and all Periodicals rates, as well as our earlier proposal and the final rule effective May 14 for all other classes of mail, at *http://www.usps.com/ratecase* . Our Web site also provides frequently asked questions, press releases, and *Mailers Companion and MailPro* articles related to the pricing change for all classes of mail. Background On May 14, 2007, the Postal Service implemented new prices and mailing standards to support the majority of the pricing change recommended by the Postal Regulatory Commission in Docket No. R2006-1 and accepted by the Governors of the United States Postal Service. The Postal Service Board of Governors delayed the implementation of new Periodicals prices and mailing standards until July 15, 2007, to give postal employees and mailers more time to prepare for the complex pricing structure recommended by the Commission. In our request for a recommended decision filed with the Commission on May 3, 2006, we proposed Periodicals rates based on pieces, pounds, and a single container charge. The Commission recommended rates based on pieces and pounds but also on bundles and containers for Outside-County pieces. Piece rates vary based on machinability, barcoding, and presort level. Bundle and container rates vary based on presort level and point of entry. The recommended rate structure explicitly recognizes the cost differences between various bundles, containers, and entry points. Ideally, mailers will respond to these price signals, bring down costs, and improve the efficiency of all Periodicals mail. For In-County Periodicals, the rate design is still based on pieces and pounds, as it is today. Since many publications use both Outside-County and In-County rates, the Board established July 15 as the implementation date for both subclasses, and for all Periodicals fees. Summary of Comments Received We received forty-six comments on our Periodicals proposal from thirty newspaper publishers, two associations, two software providers, two magazine publishers, one fulfillment and lettershop, one freelance writer, and one individual who did not identify a business concern. We appreciate all of the feedback, and we carefully considered the comments. Comments on the New Prices Forty-one commenters objected to the new prices or the new price structure for Outside-County Periodicals mail. Most of these commenters stated that the new prices were too expensive, too complex, or both too expensive and too complex for small-circulation publications. Several commenters asked us to retain the piece/pound structure for Outside-County mail. One commenter objected to eliminating the discounts for pieces on pallets. The postage rates were formulated by the independent Postal Regulatory Commission in separate, public proceedings and are outside the scope of our mailing standards proposal. We do not have the authority in this rulemaking to change the rates that were recommended by the Commission and subsequently accepted by the Postal Service Governors. However, in response to these commenters, we emphasize that under Federal law, each class of mail, including Periodicals mail, must cover its own costs. Our handling and delivery costs for Periodicals mail have been increasing while the number of pieces mailed is decreasing, and the new rate structure reflects these changing cost patterns. Periodicals rates historically have not covered costs or have barely covered costs, and many types of pieces do not cover their costs. This discrepancy means that other pieces must pay more than their share to make up the difference, because we do not receive any tax dollars or other subsidies to cover our costs for Periodicals mail. Several commenters suggested that “larger” circulation publications should pay higher Periodicals rates to help cover the costs associated with the entire Periodicals class of mail. The Postal Regulatory Commission did not return rates that provide for one group of mailers to pay more postage and for another group to pay less postage than necessary to cover costs. We agree with commenters that the educational, cultural, scientific, and informational value of Periodicals should be recognized in our prices. The new prices for Periodicals mail are as low as they can go, while still covering our costs. In addition, the new Periodicals prices, like our current prices, include low rates that do not vary by distance for the nonadvertising portion of a mailpiece, to promote the dissemination of information nationwide. The new rate structure further provides new discounts for the nonadvertising portion when the publication is entered at a destination facility. Several commenters expressed concern that the new Outside-County Periodicals rate structure was designed by a large-circulation Periodicals mailer in closed-door proceedings. We reiterate that rate setting is outside the scope of our mailing standards proposal, but we note that the new rates for Periodicals mail were recommended by the independent Postal Regulatory Commission as part of the Omnibus Rate Case in Docket No. R2006-1, and subsequently accepted by the Postal Service Board of Governors. During the rate case proceedings, the Commission held 34 days of public hearings, and Periodicals mailers of all circulation sizes were represented and provided substantial amounts of feedback. The proceedings were on the record, announced in both the print and online versions of the **Federal Register** , open to the public, and broadcast live on the Internet. The Commission used a rate design similar to one proposed by Time Warner both in 2004 and in Docket No. R2006-1, but substantially modified the rates to ensure fairness and equity for all mailers. Twenty commenters objected to container charges for Outside-County Periodicals flat-size mail prepared in trays. These commenters said they would stop moving mail out of sacks and into trays as a result of the new charges, thereby undermining an initiative to prepare more Periodicals mail in trays. Our mail preparation standards provide only one option for preparing flat-size pieces in trays. This option is explained in DMM 707.22.7, and it applies only to automation-compatible pieces sorted to the ADC or mixed ADC levels. Because flats in these types of trays are not bundled, mailers can avoid the bundle charges, but there is no provision to avoid the container charges for this or any type of Periodicals mail (except for some mixed containers of In-County and Outside-County mail and for noncontainerized mail entered at a destination delivery unit, as explained below). One commenter stated that the Commission did not recommend a container rate for trays, and questioned the costing data used to determine the tray rates. The Commission's Opinion and Recommended Decision included Periodicals rate design information in Library Reference #14 (PRC-LR-14-Periodicals). When calculating Periodicals revenues, the Commission used a worksheet called “PieceVolume(3)” to determine the container counts (refer to the “Containers” tab of the worksheet). The source, as noted in the worksheet, is TW-LR-5, which originally comes from USPS witness Loetscher's response to interrogatories from Time Warner (see TW/USPS-T28-7&8). Loetscher included “all other types of containers” (other than pallets) in “sacks” (see Table 13, “Periodicals Outside-County Flats Distribution of Containers by Strata, Type, Level, and Entry Facility Type”). The Commission's calculation used container numbers that included pieces in trays with pieces in sacks, and our interpretation and application of the container rate is consistent with the Commission's calculation. One of our goals is to encourage efficient use of containers, including trays, and the Commission returned rates to support this goal. We note that for mail properly prepared loose in trays (according to the appropriate mailing standards), the bundle charges do not apply and mitigate the effect of the container charges. One commenter asked how to determine the piece and bundle rates for automation-rate letter-size mail prepared in full letter trays. When prepared in full letter trays these pieces are not bundled, and mailers would use the tray level in place of a bundle level to calculate the piece charge. Unbundled pieces in full letter trays are not subject to bundle charges (but are subject to the container charges). Automation letters in less-than-full trays must be bundled and are subject to both bundle and container charges. One commenter objected to eliminating the discounts for pieces on pallets. We emphasize that both the old and the new rate structures for Periodicals mail offer incentives for mailers to put more mail on pallets and enter those pallets at destination facilities. Rather than offer discounts, the overall rates are lower for mail on pallets, and send the appropriate pricing signals to mailers who can prepare mail on pallets either in single or in combined mailings. One commenter agreed with our proposal not to assess bundle and container charges for mixed In-County and Outside-County pieces at the carrier route and 5-digit levels. This same commenter agreed that uncontainerized mail presented at a destination delivery unit should pay bundle charges but not container charges, and would like us to eliminate all bundling and container requirements and charges for this mail in the future. Because there is value in bundled mail to a carrier route entered at a DDU, we do not plan to change these mailing standards. Comments on Mail Preparation Two commenters asked us to clarify our standards for mailings entered at destination bulk mail centers (DBMCs). We clarified the standards in revised DMM 707.29.2.2. One of these commenters also asked us to clarify whether DBMC-entered offshore containers are considered origin-or destination-entered. Offshore containers are considered origin-entered because the DBMC does not service the Line 1 ZIP Code on those containers. One commenter asked us to raise the maximum weight for machinable flat-size mail. We provided machinable rates for 5-digit barcoded flats up to 4.4 pounds to align with our future flats sequencing equipment, which will be able to process heavier and thicker flats compared to the automated flat sorting machine
(AFSM)100. In addition, the previous 6-pound limit for UFSM 1000 pieces was too high for efficient handling, even on existing equipment, and often resulted in manual processing. This commenter also asked us to increase the 20-ounce limit to 48 ounces for flat-size pieces prepared under DMM 301.3.0 when the pieces are part of a comailing. We cannot accommodate this request because we cannot process these types of heavier pieces efficiently on the AFSM 100. We do allow up to 5 percent of the pieces in a comailing to be over 20 ounces, but not more than 22 ounces. This commenter additionally objected to our standards that designate UFSM 1000-compatible pieces as “nonmachinable” at the 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC levels. Our standards are intended to align automation flats preparation with the processing capabilities of the AFSM 100, currently the preferred machine for flats processing and the workhorse for the distribution of flats prepared in 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC bundles in our processing plants. The processing capabilities of the AFSM 100 are superior to those of the UFSM 1000. The throughput of the AFSM 100 (17,000 pieces per hour) is much higher than the throughput of the UFSM 1000 (5,000 pieces per hour). We have no plans to purchase new UFSM 1000s, and we are removing them from many plants. Therefore, the best rates are for AFSM 100-compatible mailpieces. One commenter asked us to clarify that Outside-County firm bundles no longer count toward the minimum number of pieces required for a presort destination, but In-County firm bundles do count toward presort minimums. We revised our standards for firm bundles to clarify this distinction. In-County firm bundles will count toward presort minimums, as they do today. Outside-County firm bundles will not count toward presort minimums, because the Commission assigned a single piece rate and separate bundle rates for Outside-County firm bundles. Two commenters asked us to clarify the new Periodicals terminology and apply it consistently throughout DMM 705 and 707. One commenter remarked that our terminology is confusing. We revised the terminology in DMM 705 and 707 for clarity and consistency. We use the term “machinable” for all flat-size pieces prepared under DMM 301.3.0, and for 5-digit barcoded flat-size pieces prepared under DMM 707.26.0. We use the term “nonmachinable” for flat-size pieces prepared under DMM 707.26.0 at the 3-digit/SCF, ADC, and mixed ADC levels, and for nonbarcoded pieces at the 5-digit level. We also use the term “nonmachinable” to describe all Periodicals parcels. Comments on Mailing Documentation Seven commenters said that the Periodicals postage statement, Form 3541, was too complicated, and asked for an easy-to-use form. Two of these commenters objected to using presort software because of its cost, and asked for a simple manual form. We designed Form 3541 to be as straightforward as possible, but we recognize that a simple form cannot accommodate the complex new structure for Outside-County mail recommended by the Postal Regulatory Commission. One commenter expressed concern over the width of the USPS Qualification Report and asked whether the “running total” column could serve as the column that indicates which bundles and containers are subject to the Outside-County bundle and container rates. To clarify, the running total column can serve this purpose. This same commenter asked if PAVE will certify the new container and bundle reports. We do intend to certify products using the new documentation standards that are being developed. One commenter asked if firm bundles will be represented on the USPS Qualification Report any differently than they are today. Outside-County firm bundles cannot count toward presort minimums and will be reported as separate bundles on the Qualification Report. We did not change the standards or documentation requirements for In-County firm bundles. One commenter asked us to remove the requirement to include postage information on standardized documentation. We agree with this commenter and made this requirement an option in revised DMM 708.1.2. One commenter objected to the approval requirements for “titles” prepared in combined mailings. As clarification, each publication must be authorized or pending authorization to mail at Periodicals rates, but only the mailer must be authorized to combine mailings. Comments on Service Eight commenters expressed concerns about delivery delays, lost mail, and other service issues. One commenter detailed delivery problems prior to 2004 but explained that these problems were resolved successfully. We are committed to providing a high level of service for Periodicals and all types of mail. We formed a new Mailers Technical Advisory Committee
(MTAC)workgroup, with both mailers and Postal Service employees, to establish service standards and recommend ways to measure performance for Periodicals mail. We will communicate and implement these service standards in the future. In the meantime, we will continue to work with mailers at the local and national levels when service problems arise to identify and resolve issues on an ongoing basis. Other Comments One commenter asked us to verify that FAST will update the mail direction data for Periodicals entered at DBMCs. FAST already shows the default BMC ZIP Code range, and does not distinguish among classes. FAST will allow pallet or speedline appointments for Periodicals at BMCs; bedloaded or “drop and pick” mailings will not be allowed. The Mail Direction file already accommodates BMC entry of Periodicals. One commenter agreed with the Governors' decision to delay the new Periodicals prices and mailing standards until July 15, to give mailers more time to prepare for the changes. One commenter raised questions about the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as it applies to Periodicals mail. The Act is outside the scope of our mailing standards proposed and final rules, and will be addressed in a separate proceeding. Overview of Changes Since the Proposed Rule We made revisions throughout our mailing standards to consistently reflect the new Periodicals rate structure and terminology. We updated our standards to reflect that In-County firm bundles count toward presort minimums, but Outside-County firm bundles do not count toward presort minimums. We revised mailing standards in DMM 707.2.0 that described both In-County and Outside-County rates to better distinguish between the two and to clarify the new Outside-County piece rates. We revised DMM 707.2.1.8 to clarify that the container level is based on the least-finely presorted bundle it contains (for example, a “5-digit metro pallet” may contain 3-digit and 5-digit bundles and would pay the 3-digit/SCF pallet rate). We also added information about mailer-supplied air freight containers in 707.2.1.8. We revised DMM 708.1.2 to make the inclusion of postage information and certain running totals optional on standardized documentation. We reformatted the Outside-County piece rate chart to separate the parcel rates from the flats rates. The new format better reflects that the piece rates for parcels do not vary based on the use of a barcode. Overview of Outside-County Periodicals Mail New Container Rate Structure The new rate structure adds container rates for Periodicals mail. We define a “container” as a tray, sack, pallet, or other equivalent USPS-approved container. Most of our standards for mail preparation are not changing as a result of the new rate structure. Mailers will still follow the mail preparation requirements in DMM 705, 707, and 708, which specify when to prepare mail in bundles and when to place it in trays, sacks, and pallets. We note that mailers must follow the preparation and entry requirements in the DMM. Mailers cannot choose to use certain containers (or to not use containers) to circumvent the rates. New Outside-County container rates are based on the type of container (tray, sack, or pallet), the level of sortation of the container, and where the container is entered. The container level is determined by the least-finely presorted bundle it contains, because that determines the point where the container must be opened for bundle sorting. We will apply the container rates to pallets, sacks, and trays containing Outside-County Periodicals mail (except for mixed containers of In-County and Outside-County pieces in carrier route, 5-digit carrier routes, and 5-digit/scheme containers). When trays and sacks are placed on pallets, we will charge for each tray and sack, but not for the pallets. This should encourage mailers to use pallets. Container rates decrease with deeper entry because there are fewer handlings needed. The best rates are for mail that is finely sorted on pallets and entered close to its destination. For example, the price for a 5-digit pallet entered at a DDU is $1.20, compared to $15.50 if entered at a DADC. On the other hand, when entered at the same facility level, prices are higher for more-finely presorted containers than for those that are less-finely presorted. The difference reflects the additional handlings that the more-finely presorted container will get before it is opened. For instance, for origin entry, the price for a 5-digit pallet is $26.95, or $8.34 higher than the $18.61 price for an ADC pallet. Working in the opposite direction, a bundle in a less-finely presorted container requires more handlings prior to piece sortation than the same level bundle in a more-finely presorted container, and bundle prices reflect this. The price for a 5-digit bundle is $0.095 on an ADC pallet, but only $0.008 on a 5-digit pallet, a difference of $0.087. The lower bundle postage will offset some, all, or more than all of the higher container postage. Taken as a whole, the inter-relationships among the per-container, per-bundle and per-piece prices in this rate structure provide further incentives for mailers to comail and copalletize. The rate structure also provides new rates for pallets and for trays or sacks on pallets entered at a destination bulk mail center (DBMC). These rates reflect the cost of cross-docking pallets and do not represent a new pallet sortation level. Mailers can enter Periodicals mail at the DBMCs or DASFs listed in DMM Exhibit 346.3.1, or at a USPS-designated facility. For DBMC entry, pieces must be prepared in bundles or in sacks on SCF, ADC, 3-digit, or 5-digit pallets, and addressed for delivery to one of the 3-digit ZIP Codes served by that BMC. New Bundle Rate Structure We are adopting new rates for bundles of Periodicals mail, but we are not changing the definition of a bundle or the bundling requirements. A “bundle” is a group of addressed pieces secured together as a unit. Pieces are first sorted to destinations and then assembled into groups for bundling based on quantity and other factors. The term bundle does not apply to unsecured groups of pieces (for example, pieces prepared loose in letter or flat trays). “Firm bundles” are also groups of pieces that are secured together, but in a firm bundle all pieces are for delivery to the address shown on the top piece. New Outside-County bundle rates are based on the level of sorting of both the bundle and the container (but not on the type of container). More finely presorted bundles within the same container level have higher rates to reflect more bundle handlings before they are opened. For example, for pieces sorted into a carrier route bundle, and then placed on an ADC pallet or sack, a mailer pays 10.4 cents per bundle. For pieces sorted into an ADC bundle and placed on an ADC pallet or sack, a mailer pays 3.8 cents per bundle. A lower piece rate for pieces in more finely presorted bundles offsets the higher bundle charge. We will apply the bundle rates to all bundles containing Outside-County mail, except for mixed bundles of In-County and Outside-County pieces in carrier route and 5-digit/scheme bundles. This exception will avoid imposing the Outside-County pricing structure on bundles that will likely contain mostly In-County pieces. Firm bundles are subject to both a piece charge (16.9 cents) and a bundle charge (2.7 cents to 7.9 cents, depending on the container level). Because of this new rate structure, mailers may no longer use firm bundles to satisfy a six-piece bundle requirement to a presort level for Outside-County bundles. We will charge bundle rates based on the actual number of bundles entered, so mailers must precisely document the number of bundles they produce. Unlike today, where there is no rate impact for a difference between the number of bundles implied by the presort requirements and the actual number of bundles created during production, under the new rates mailers must conscientiously modify software parameters and monitor physical breaks between bundles to ensure the number of bundles produced matches their documentation. New Piece Rate Structure Periodicals Outside-County prices include new piece rates based on shape, machinability, barcoding, and presort level. The presort level of the piece is based primarily on the bundle level of the piece, with one exception: The presort level of pieces loose in trays is based on the tray level. While the new structure eliminates the per-piece discounts for pieces on pallets, including the experimental copalletization discounts, the container and bundle charges are designed to encourage copalletization. The new structure also eliminates the per-piece discounts for destination area distribution center (DADC), destination sectional center facility (DSCF), and destination delivery unit
(DDU)entry, but recognizes instead the associated cost savings in the new DADC, DSCF, and DDU rates for nonadvertising pounds, as well as in the container rates. We divide the piece rates into “letter” rates, “machinable flats” rates, “nonmachinable flats” rates, and “parcel” rates; with the exception of carrier route rates, which we divide only according to saturation, high density, and basic rates. Letters We provide letter rates for “barcoded” and “nonbarcoded” pieces. Periodicals letters must meet the standards for all letters in DMM 201. Letters mailed at the barcoded rates must include a barcode and must meet the additional standards for automation letters in DMM 201.3.0. Automation Periodicals letters meet these dimensions: • Minimum height is 3 1/2 inches. Maximum height is 6 1/8 inches. • Minimum length is 5 inches. Maximum length is 11 1/2 inches. • Maximum thickness is 0.25 inch. Minimum thickness is: ○ 0.007 inch if the piece is no more than 4 1/4 inches high and 6 inches long; or ○ 0.009 inch if the piece is more than 4 1/4 inches high or 6 inches long, or both. • The maximum weight for each piece is 3.5 ounces. Periodicals letters mailed at the nonbarcoded rates meet the standards for all letters in DMM 201 but do not include a barcode, or do not meet all of the automation standards in 201.3.0 (whether or not a barcode is used). We assigned the machinable—nonbarcoded flats rates to these pieces. Nonbarcoded Periodicals letters meet these dimensions: • Minimum height is 3 1/2 inches. Maximum height is 6 1/8 inches. • Minimum length is 5 inches. Maximum length is 11 1/2 inches. • Minimum thickness is 0.007 inch. Maximum thickness is 0.25 inch. • The maximum weight for each piece is 3.5 ounces. Flats We divide flats rates into categories for machinable and nonmachinable pieces, and then provide rates for barcoded and nonbarcoded pieces. For flats prepared in 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC bundles and containers, we define “machinable—barcoded” flats as barcoded pieces that we can process on our primary flats-sorting equipment, the automated flat sorting machine (AFSM 100). These pieces must meet our standards for minimum flexibility, maximum deflection, and uniform thickness, and use automation-compatible polywrap (if polywrapped). Machinable—barcoded Periodicals flats meet these dimensions: • Minimum height is 5 inches. Maximum height is 12 inches. • Minimum length is 6 inches. Maximum length is 15 inches. • For bound or folded pieces, the edge perpendicular to the bound or folded edge may not exceed 12 inches. • Minimum thickness is 0.009 inch. Maximum thickness is 0.75 inch. • The maximum weight for each piece is 20 ounces. These pieces are defined in DMM 301.3.0 and match our standards for Standard Mail flat-size pieces mailed at automation rates, with a different weight limit. “Machinable—nonbarcoded” flats prepared in 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC bundles and containers meet the same criteria noted above, but they do not include a barcode. For flats prepared in 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC bundles and containers, we define “nonmachinable—barcoded” flats as barcoded pieces that we can process on the upgraded flat sorting machine (UFSM 1000) and in the future flats sequencing environment; therefore, the requirements are slightly more restrictive than current UFSM 1000 requirements. These pieces must meet our standards for uniform thickness and use automation-compatible polywrap (if polywrapped), but they are not currently subject to our standards for minimum flexibility and maximum deflection. Nonmachinable—barcoded Periodicals flats meet these dimensions: • Minimum height is 5 inches. Maximum height is 12 inches. • Minimum length is 6 inches. Maximum length is 15 inches. • Minimum thickness is 0.009 inch. Maximum thickness is 1.25 inches. • The maximum weight for each piece is 4.4 pounds. These pieces are defined in DMM 707.26.0, and they are unique to Periodicals mail. For pieces prepared in 5-digit bundles, we define “machinable—barcoded” flats as those pieces prepared under 301.3.0 that we can process on the AFSM 100, and those pieces prepared under 707.26 that we can process on the UFSM 1000 and on the future flats sequencing equipment. This definition will help us align Periodicals mail with the flats sequencing system, which will process a wider variety of flat-shaped mail than the AFSM 100. We are not changing the standards to allow mailers to combine pieces defined in 301.3.0 and pieces defined in 707.26.0 in the same bundle. Machinable—nonbarcoded” flats prepared in 5-digit bundles meet the same dimensions noted above, but they do not include a barcode. The rate design includes a price for “nonmachinable—barcoded” flats prepared in 5-digit bundles, but mailers will not use this rate because we allow these UFSM 1000-compatible barcoded pieces to pay the lower, machinable—barcoded rates for pieces sorted to the 5-digit level. For all sort levels, we define “nonmachinable—nonbarcoded” flats as barcoded or nonbarcoded pieces that do not meet the standards in DMM 301.3.0 or in 707.26.0. Parcels Periodicals parcels are pieces that cannot be processed on our primary flat-sorting equipment. This rate category includes rigid and parcel-like pieces, pieces in boxes, and tubes and rolls. Parcels exceed the weight or dimensions for flats in DMM 707.26, but cannot weigh more than 70 pounds or measure more than 108 inches in length and girth combined (for parcels, length is the longest dimension and girth is the distance around the thickest part). Parcel rates do not distinguish between barcoded and nonbarcoded pieces. New Pound Rate Structure For advertising pounds, the new price structure retains zoned rates and per-pound rate incentives for DADC, DSCF, and DDU entry. For nonadvertising pounds, postage from any entry point upstream from the DADC will continue to be unzoned, but there are new per-pound rate incentives for DADC, DSCF, and DDU entry. There are no pound-rate incentives for DBMC entry. Documentation We provide new documentation requirements in DMM 708.1.0, including a new bundle report, a new container report, and a new column on the USPS qualification report indicating which bundles and containers are subject to the Outside-County bundle and container rates. As we stated above, we will charge bundle rates based on the actual number of bundles entered, and the new documentation will help us verify that mailers have correctly prepared and paid for their mailings. We are not changing the documentation requirements for In-County mail. Overview of In-County Periodicals Mail Other than changes to In-County rates, we are not implementing any changes to the In-County rate design or mail preparation standards. We provide the updated DMM standards, and how they are applied for Periodicals mail, below. These standards are effective on July 15, 2007. We adopt the following amendments to *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows: PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001. 2. Revise the following sections of *Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,* Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows: 200 Discount Letters and Cards 201 Physical Standards 2.0 Physical Standards for Nonmachinable Letters *[Insert new 2.4 as follows:]* 2.4 Additional Criteria for Periodicals Nonmachinable Letters The nonbarcoded letter rates in 707.1.1.2 apply to Periodicals letter-size pieces that have one or more of the nonmachinable characteristics in 2.1. 3.0 Physical Standards for Automation Letters and Cards 3.5 Weight Standards for Periodicals Automation Letters The maximum weight for Periodicals automation letters is 3.5 ounces (0.2188 pound). See 3.13.4 for pieces heavier than 3 ounces. 700 Special Standards 705 Advanced Preparation and Special Postage Payment Systems 8.0 Preparation for Pallets 8.9 Bundles on Pallets 8.9.3 Periodicals Bundle size: Six-piece minimum (lower-volume bundles permitted under 707.22.0, *Preparing Presorted Periodicals,* and 707.23.0, *Preparing Carrier Route Periodicals),* 20-pound maximum, except: *[Revise item a to remove the option to count firm bundles as one piece for presort standards for Outside-County Periodicals as follows:]* a. Firm bundles may contain as few as two copies of a publication. Mailers must not consolidate firm bundles with other bundles to the same 5-digit destination. Only In-County firm bundles may be counted as an addressed piece for presort standards (see 707.22.0 and 707.23.0). 9.0 Preparing Cotrayed and Cosacked Bundles of Automation and Presorted Flats 9.2 Periodicals 9.2.5 Sack Preparation and Labeling Nonbarcoded rate and barcoded rate bundles prepared under 9.2.2, 9.2.3, and 9.2.4 must be presorted together into sacks (cosacked) in the sequence listed below. Sacks must be labeled using the following information for Lines 1 and 2 and 707.21.0 for other sack label criteria. If, due to the physical size of the mailpieces, the barcoded rate pieces are considered flat-size under 301.3.0 and the nonbarcoded rate pieces are considered parcels under 401.1.6, the processing category shown on the sack label must show “FLTS.” *[Revise item a to require scheme sorting as follows:]* a. 5-digit/scheme, required; scheme sort required only for pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0; 24-piece minimum, fewer pieces not permitted; labeling: 1. Line 1: For 5-digit scheme sacks, use L007, Column B. For 5-digit sacks, use city, state, and 5-digit ZIP Code destination on pieces. 2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable and, for 5-digit scheme sacks, “FLT 5D SCH BC/NBC;” for 5-digit sacks, “FLT 5D BC/NBC.” 10.0 Preparation for Merged Containerization of Bundles of Flats Using City State Product 10.1 Periodicals 10.1.1 Basic Standards Carrier route bundles in a carrier route rate mailing may be placed in the same sack or on the same pallet as 5-digit bundles from a barcoded rate mailing and 5-digit bundles from a nonbarcoded rate mailing (including pieces cobundled under 11.0) under the following conditions: *[Revise item j to remove the option to count firm bundles toward the six-piece minimum for rate eligibility for Outside-County Periodicals as follows:]* j. For mailings prepared in sacks, mailers may not combine firm bundles and 5-digit scheme pieces in 5-digit scheme bundles or in 5-digit scheme sacks. Firm bundles must be placed in a separate individual 5-digit sack under 10.1.4g to maintain 5-digit rate eligibility. Mailers may combine firm bundles with 5-digit scheme, 3-digit scheme, and other presort destination bundles in carrier route, 5-digit, 3-digit, SCF, ADC, and mixed ADC sacks. Only an In-County firm bundle can contribute toward the six-piece minimum for rate eligibility. 11.0 Preparing Cobundled Barcoded Rate and Nonbarcoded Rate Flats 11.2 Periodicals 11.2.1 Basic Standards *[Revise the introductory text in 11.2.1 to require 5-digit scheme and 3-digit scheme sort and eliminate distinctions between AFSM 100 and UFSM 1000 flats as follows:]* Mailers may choose to cobundle (see 707.18.4ab) barcoded rate and nonbarcoded rate flat-size pieces as an option to the basic bundling requirements in 707.22.0 and 707.25.0. 5-digit scheme and 3-digit scheme bundles also must meet the additional standards in 707.18.4i and 707.18.4r. Mailing jobs (for flats meeting the criteria in 301.3.0) prepared using the 5-digit scheme and/or the 3-digit scheme bundle preparation must be sacked under 10.0 or palletized under 10.0, 12.0, or 13.0. All bundles are subject to the following conditions: *[Revise item g as follows:]* g. Within a bundle, all pieces must meet the requirements in 301.3.0 or all pieces must meet the requirements in 707.26.0. 11.2.2 Bundle Preparation *[Revise the introductory text in 11.2.2 to specify that pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0 must be scheme-sorted as follows:]* Pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0 must be prepared in 5-digit scheme bundles for those 5-digit ZIP Codes identified in L007 and in 3-digit scheme bundles for those 3-digit ZIP Codes identified in L008. Preparation sequence, bundle size, and labeling: *[Revise item b to require 5-digit scheme bundles as follows:] b. 5-digit scheme, required; * * ** *[Revise item d to require 3-digit scheme bundles as follows:] d. 3-digit scheme, required; * * ** 15.0 Plant-Verified Drop Shipment 15.2 Program Participation 15.2.4 Periodicals *[Revise 15.2.4 to reflect the new rate structure for Periodicals mail as follows:]* Periodicals postage must be paid at the post office verifying the copies or as designated by the district. Postage is calculated from the destination USPS facility where the mail is deposited and accepted (or from the facility where the Express Mail or Priority Mail Open and Distribute destinates). The publisher must ensure that sufficient funds are on deposit to pay for all mailings before their release. A publisher authorized under an alternative postage payment system must pay postage under the corresponding standards. 16.0 Express Mail Open and Distribute and Priority Mail Open and Distribute *[Revise heading of 16.1 as follows:]* 16.1 Description 16.1.4 Basis of Rate *[Revise 16.1.4 to specify that container rates do not apply to Express Mail and Priority Mail Open and Distribute sacks as follows:]* Mailers must pay Express Mail and Priority Mail postage based on the weight of the entire contents of the Express Mail or Priority Mail shipment. Do not include the tare weight of the external container. Do not apply Priority Mail dimensional weight pricing or Periodicals container rates to the external container. 707 Periodicals 1.0 Rates and Fees 1.1 Outside-County—Excluding Science-of-Agriculture *[Renumber 1.1.3 through 1.1.5 as new 1.1.5 through 1.1.7. Insert new 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 as follows:]* 1.1.3 Outside-County Bundle Rates Rate for each bundle containing Outside-County Periodicals mail (see 2.1.8 for how to apply these rates): *[We provide all of the new rates for Periodicals mail at pe.usps.com (click on “Ratefold”).]* 1.1.4 Outside-County Container Rates Rate for each pallet, sack, tray, or other USPS-approved container containing Outside-County Periodicals mail (see 2.1.9 for how to apply these rates): *[We provide all of the new rates for Periodicals mail at pe.usps.com (click on “Ratefold”).]* 1.2 Outside-County—Science-of-Agriculture *[Renumber 1.2.3 as new 1.2.5. Insert new 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 as follows:]* 1.2.3 Outside-County Bundle Rates *Rate for each bundle containing Outside-County Periodicals mail (see 2.1.8 for how to apply these rates):* *[We provide all of the new rates of Periodicals mail to pe.usps.com (click on “Ratefold”).]* 1.2.4 Outside-County Container Rates Rate for each pallet, sack, tray, or other USPS-approved container containing Outside-County Periodicals mail (see 2.1.9 for how to apply these rates): *[We provide all of the new rates for Periodicals mail at pe.usps.com (click on “Ratefold”).]* 2.0 Rate Application and Computation 2.1 Rate Application 2.1.1 Rate Elements *[Revise 2.1.1 to reflect the new Outside-County bundle and container rates and the new nonadvertising pound rate structure as follows:]* Postage for Periodicals mail includes a pound rate charge, a piece rate charge, bundle and container rate charges for Outside-County mail, and any discounts for which the mail qualifies under the corresponding standards. *[Renumber 2.1.2 through 2.1.5 as 2.1.4 through 2.1.7. Add new 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 to reflect the new piece rate structure for Outside-County mail and to separate the piece rate application for In-County and Outside-County mail as follows:]* 2.1.2 Applying Outside-County Piece Rates An *addressed piece* can be a single individually addressed copy or a firm bundle containing unaddressed or individually addressed copies for the same address. The per piece charge is based on the number of addressed pieces (not the number of copies). Outside-County piece rates are based on the shape of the mailpiece (letter, flat, or parcel); the characteristics of the mailpiece (machinable or nonmachinable, see 18.4ac and 18.4ad); the application of a barcode; and the bundle presort level. For pieces properly prepared loose in trays, the rate is based on the tray presort level. Apply piece rates for Outside-County mail as follows: *a. Letters.* 1. Apply the “Letters—Barcoded” rates to pieces that meet all of the standards for automation letters in 201.3.0 and include a barcode. 2. Apply the “Letters—Nonbarcoded” rates to pieces that meet the standards for all letters in 201 but do not include a barcode. Apply these rates also to pieces that are barcoded but do not meet all of the automation letter standards in 201.3.0. *b. Machinable flats.* 1. Apply the “Machinable Flats—Barcoded” rates to pieces that meet all of the standards for automation flats in 301.3.0 and include a barcode. Apply the 5-digit rate also to 5-digit barcoded pieces prepared under the alternative flats criteria in 26.0. 2. Apply the “Machinable Flats—Nonbarcoded” rates to pieces that meet all of the standards for automation flats in 301.3.0 but do not include a barcode. *c. Nonmachinable flats.* 1. Apply the “Nonmachinable Flats—Barcoded” rates to pieces that meet all of the alternative standards for flats in 26.0 and include a barcode. *Exception:* 5-digit barcoded pieces prepared under 26.0 pay the “Machinable Flats—Barcoded” 5-digit rate. 2. Apply the “Nonmachinable Flats—Nonbarcoded” rates to pieces that meet all of the alternative standards for flats in 26.0 but do not include a barcode. Apply these rates also to all nonmachinable flats, whether or not a barcode is used. *c. Parcels.* Apply the “Parcels” rates to all parcels, whether or not a barcode is used. 2.1.3 Applying In-County Piece Rates An *addressed piece* can be a single individually addressed copy or a firm bundle containing unaddressed or individually addressed copies for the same address. The per piece charge is based on the number of addressed pieces (not the number of copies). For In-County mail, piece rates apply to each addressed piece, based on the sorting done by the publisher. Piece rates for automation mailings are based on the bundle level (or tray level for unbundled pieces in trays); piece rates for nonautomation mailings are based on the tray or sack level. 2.1.4 Applying Pound Rate *[Revise renumbered 2.1.4 to reflect the new nonadvertising rate structure and to clarify item b as follows:]* Apply pound rates to the weight of the pieces in the mailing as follows: a. Outside-County and Science-of-Agriculture Outside-County pound rates are based on the weight of the advertising portion sent to each postal zone (as computed from the entry office) or destination entry zone, and the weight of the nonadvertising portion to a destination entry zone or a single rate to all other zones. b. In-County pound rates consist of a DDU entry rate and an unzoned rate for eligible copies delivered to addresses within the county of publication. *[Revise the heading of renumbered 2.1.4 as follows:]* 2.1.5 Computing Weight of Advertising and Nonadvertising Portions *[Revise renumbered 2.1.5 to reflect the new nonadvertising rate structure as follows:]* The pound rate charge is the sum of the charges for the computed weight of the advertising portion of copies to each destination entry and zone, plus the sum of the charges for the computed weight of the nonadvertising portion of copies to each destination entry and all other zones. The following standards apply: a. The minimum pound rate charge for any zone to which copies are mailed is the 1-pound rate. For example, three 2-ounce copies for a zone are subject to the minimum 1-pound charge. b. Authorized Nonprofit and Classroom publications with an advertising percentage that is 10% or less are considered 100% nonadvertising. When computing the pound rates and the nonadvertising adjustment, use “0” as the advertising percentage. Authorized Nonprofit and Classroom publications claiming 0% advertising must pay the nonadvertising pound rate for the entire weight of all copies to all zones. *[Insert new 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 as follows:]* 2.1.8 Applying Outside-County Bundle Rates For Outside-County mail prepared in bundles, mailers pay the bundle rate according to the presort level of the bundle and the presort level of the container that the bundle is placed in or on. Bundle rates do not apply to barcoded letter-size mail prepared in full letter trays or to flat-size mail prepared in flat trays under the optional tray preparation in 705 and 707. The bundle rates are in addition to the container rates in 2.1.8. The following standards apply: a. Bundles of fewer than six pieces under 25.1.5 (including single-piece bundles) must each pay the applicable bundle charge. b. For bundles containing both In-County and Outside-County pieces, mailers do not pay the bundle charge for carrier route and 5-digit/scheme bundles. 2.1.9 Applying Outside-County Container Rates For Outside-County mail prepared in trays, sacks, pallets, and other USPS-approved containers, mailers pay the container rate according to the type of container, the presort level of the container, and where the mail is entered. The container level is determined by the least-finely presorted bundle it contains (for example, a “5-digit metro pallet” may contain 3-digit and 5-digit bundles and would pay the 3-digit/SCF pallet rate). For mailer-supplied air freight containers, mailers pay the container charge based on the original presort of the mail before it is transferred to the airfreight container. The container rates are in addition to the bundle rates in 2.1.7. The following additional standards apply: a. For mailings prepared in trays or sacks, mailers pay the container rate for each tray or sack based on container level and entry. b. For mailings prepared on pallets under 705.8.0: 1. For bundles placed directly on pallets, mailers pay the container rate for each pallet. 2. For trays or sacks on pallets, mailers pay the container rate for each tray or sack, and not for the pallets. The container rate for each tray or sack is based on the tray or sack level and where the pallet is entered. c. For containers with both In-County and Outside-County pieces, mailers do not pay the container rate for carrier route, 5-digit carrier routes, and 5-digit/scheme pallets, sacks, and trays. 2.2 Computing Postage *[Revise 2.2.5 to reflect the new piece rate structure for Outside-County mail as follows:]* 2.2.5 Piece Rate Determine the piece rate postage as follows: a. *Outside-County.* Multiply the number of copies by the appropriate rate, based on the criteria in 2.1.2a. b. *In-County.* Multiply the number of addressed pieces (not copies) by the appropriate rate, based on the presort of the pieces as mailed. *[Renumber 2.2.7 as 2.2.8. Insert new 2.2.7 to compute the Outside-County bundle and container rates as follows:]* 2.2.7 Outside-County Bundle and Container Charges The Outside-County bundle charge is the sum of the number of bundles for each bundle level and container level in the mailing subject to the Outside-County bundle rates (see 1.1.3 and 1.2.3), multiplied by the applicable bundle rates. The Outside-County container charge is the sum of the number of containers for each container type, container level, and entry level in the mailing subject to the Outside-County container rates (see 1.1.4 and 1.2.4), multiplied by the applicable container rates. Mailers must document the number of bundles and containers required for the rates claimed. If the documentation shows more bundles and containers are required than are presented for mailing, the mailer must pay the charges according to the documentation. Mailers cannot reduce the bundle and container charges by preparing fewer bundles and containers than standards require. Mailers who prepare Periodicals publications as a combined mailing by merging copies or bundles of copies under 27.0 may pay the Outside-County bundle and container charges in one of the following ways: a. On one publisher's Form 3541. b. On one consolidated Form 3541. Under this option, the consolidator must complete the appropriate sections of the form and pay the charges from the consolidator's own advance deposit account. c. Apportioned on each publisher's Form 3541. The following standards apply: 1. The qualification report must be submitted electronically via Mail.dat. See 708.1.0 for additional documentation requirements. 2. The total charges on all Form 3541s in a combined mailing must equal the total charges for all bundles and containers subject to the Outside-County container rates presented for mailing. 3. Apportion the bundle charge for each title or edition by determining how many of each type of bundle that title or edition is in. Next calculate the percentage of copies in each of those bundles and convert to four decimal places, rounding if necessary (for example, convert 20.221% to .2022). Add the decimal values for each type of bundle in the mailing and multiply the total by the applicable bundle rate in 1.1.3 and 1.2.3. Add the bundle charges to determine the total for each title or edition. 4. Apportion the container charge for each title or edition by determining how many of each type of container that title or edition is in. Next calculate the percentage of copies in each of those containers and convert to four decimal places, rounding if necessary (for example, convert 20.221% to .2022). Add the decimal values for each type of container in the mailing and multiply the total by the applicable container rate in 1.1.4 and 1.2.4. Add the container charges to determine the total for each title or edition. 2.2.8 Total Postage *[Revise renumbered 2.2.8 to reflect the new Outside-County container rates as follows:]* Total Outside-County postage is the sum of the per pound and per piece charges, the bundle charges, the container charges, and any Ride-Along and Repositionable Notes charges; minus all discounts; rounded off to the nearest whole cent. Total In-County postage is the sum of the per pound and per piece charges, and any Ride-Along and Repositionable Notes charges, less all discounts, rounded off to the nearest whole cent. 3.0 Physical Characteristics and Content Eligibility 3.5 Mailpiece Construction 3.5.2 Size and Weight *[Revise 3.5.2 as follows:]* Periodicals mail may not weigh more than 70 pounds or measure more than 108 inches in length and girth combined. Additional size and weight limits apply to letters and machinable and nonmachinable pieces. Requester publications must contain at least 24 pages per issue. 11.0 Basic Rate Eligibility 11.4 Discounts The following discounts are available: *[Delete item c to eliminate the pallet discounts.]* 12.0 Nonbarcoded/Presorted Rate Eligibility *[Renumber 12.2 through 12.4 as new 12.3 through 12.5 and add new 12.2 as follows:]* 12.2 Rates—Outside-County Outside-County nonbarcoded/presorted rates are based on the following criteria (see 2.0 for rate application and computation): a. Piece rates are based on shape, machinability, barcoding, and presort level. The presort level of the piece is based primarily on the bundle level of the piece, except the presort level of pieces loose in trays is based on the tray level. b. Bundle rates are based on the bundle and container sortation level. c. Container rates are based on the type of container (tray, sack, or pallet), the level of sortation of the container, and where the container is entered. *[Revise the heading in renumbered 12.3 as follows:]* 12.3 Rates—In-County 14.0 Barcoded/Automation Rate Eligibility *[Renumber 14.2 and 14.3 as new 14.3 and 14.4 and add new 14.2 as follows:]* 14.2 Rates—Outside-County Outside-County barcoded/automation rates are based on the following criteria (see 2.0 for rate application and computation): a. Piece rates are based on mailpiece shape (letter, flat, or parcel), machinability, barcoding, and presort level. The presort level of the piece is based on the bundle level of the piece, except the presort level of pieces loose in trays is based on the tray level. b. Bundle rates are based on the bundle and container sortation level. c. Container rates are based on the type of container (tray, sack, pallet), the level of sortation of the container, and where the container is entered. *[Revise the heading in renumbered 14.3 as follows:]* 14.3 Rates—Inside-County 15.0 Ride-Along Rate Eligibility 15.3 Physical Characteristics The host Periodicals piece and the Ride-Along piece must meet the following physical characteristics: *[Revise item c as follows:]* c. A Periodicals piece with a Ride-Along must maintain the same processing category as before the addition of the Ride-Along. 16.0 Postage Payment 16.4 Payment Method *[Revise 16.4 to clarify payment options in a combined mailing as follows:] * Mailers must pay Periodicals postage by advance deposit account at the original or additional entry post office, except under procedures in 16.5 for Centralized Postage Payment or in 705.15.2.4. Mailers may not pay postage for Periodicals using permit imprint, meter stamp, postage stamp, or precanceled stamps. Mailers must pay postage for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail enclosures under 703.9.8 through 703.9.12 and 705.16.1. Mailers who prepare Periodicals publications as a combined mailing by merging copies or bundles of copies under 27.0 may pay the Outside-County bundle and container charges on one mailer's Form 3541, on one consolidated Form 3541, or on each mailer's Form 3541 (see 2.2.7). 17.0 Documentation 17.7 Additional Standards *[Insert new 17.7.4 as follows:] * 17.7.4 Outside-County Bundle and Container Rate Documentation A complete, signed postage statement, using the correct USPS form or an approved facsimile, must accompany each mailing, supported by standardized documentation meeting the basic standards in 708.1.0. The documentation must show how many bundles are used and how many trays, sacks, and pallets are required for the rates and discounts claimed. 18.0 General Information for Mail Preparation 18.3 Presort Terms Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: *[Revise items e and p for scheme sorting as follows:]* e. *5-digit scheme (bundles and sacks) for flats prepared according to 301.3.0:* The ZIP Code in the delivery address on all pieces is one of the 5-digit ZIP Codes processed by the USPS as a single scheme, as shown in L007. p. *3-digit scheme bundles for flats prepared according to 301.3.0:* The ZIP Code in the delivery address on all pieces is one of the 3-digit ZIP Codes processed by the USPS as a single scheme, as shown in L008. 18.4 Mail Preparation Terms For purposes of preparing mail: *[Revise item b to require trays to be at least 85% full as follows:]* b. A *full letter tray* is one in which faced, upright pieces fill the length of the tray between 85% and 100% full. *[Revise items i and r for scheme sorting as follows:]* i. A *5-digit scheme sort* yields 5-digit scheme bundles for those 5-digit ZIP Codes identified in L007. Mailers must presort according to L007. Pieces prepared in scheme bundles must meet the automation flat criteria in 301.3.0. Mailpieces must be labeled using an optional endorsement line under 708.7.0. Periodicals firm bundles must not be combined within 5-digit scheme bundles. r. A *3-digit scheme sort* yields 3-digit scheme bundles for those 3-digit ZIP Codes identified in L008. The 3-digit scheme sort is optional, except under 705.12.0 and 705.13.0. For 705.12.0 and 705.13.0, mailers must presort according to L008. Pieces prepared in scheme bundles must meet the automation flat criteria in 301.3.0. Mailers must label mailpieces using an OEL under 708.7.0. Periodicals firm bundles must not be combined within 3-digit scheme bundles. *[Insert new items ac and ad to define “machinability” as follows:]* ac. *Machinable flats* are: 1. Flat-size pieces meeting the standards in 301.3.0 that are sorted into 5-digit, 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC bundles. These pieces are compatible with processing on the AFSM 100. 2. Barcoded flat-size pieces meeting the standards in 26.0 that are sorted into 5-digit bundles. ad. *Nonmachinable* flats are flat-size pieces meeting the standards in 26.0, with the exception of barcoded 5-digit pieces under 18.4ac (item 2) above. Nonmachinable flats are not compatible with processing on the AFSM 100. 22.0 Preparing Nonbarcoded Periodicals 22.2 Bundle Preparation *[Revise the introductory text of 22.2 to specify that pieces must meet the criteria in 301.3.0 for scheme sorting as follows:]* Mailings consisting entirely of nonbarcoded pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0 may be prepared in 5-digit scheme bundles for those 5-digit ZIP Codes identified in L007 and in 3-digit scheme bundles for those 3-digit ZIP Codes identified in L008. A bundle must be prepared when the quantity of addressed pieces for a required presort level reaches the minimum bundle size (except under 22.7). Smaller volumes are not permitted except in mixed ADC bundles and 5-digit/scheme and 3-digit/scheme bundles prepared under 22.4. Bundling is also subject to 19.0, *Bundles* . Preparation sequence, bundle size, and labeling: *[Renumber items b through f as new items c through g. Insert new item b as follows:]* b. 5-digit scheme (optional); six-piece minimum; OEL. *[Renumber new items d through g as items e through h. Insert new item d as follows:]* d. 3-digit scheme (optional); six-piece minimum; OEL. *[Revise 22.3 to remove the option to count firm bundles toward the six-piece bundle requirement for a presort destination for Outside-County Periodicals as follows:]* 22.3 Firm Bundles A “firm bundle” is defined as two or more copies for the same address placed in one bundle. If each copy has a delivery address, each may be claimed as a separate piece for presort and on the postage statement, or the firm bundle may be claimed as one addressed piece. A firm bundle claimed as one addressed piece must be physically separate from other bundles and may only be used to satisfy a six-piece bundle requirement to a presort destination for In-County rates. 22.6 Sack Preparation—Flat-Size Pieces and Parcels For mailing jobs that also contain a barcoded rate mailing under 301.3.0, see 22.1.2 and 705.9.0 or 705.10.0. For mailing jobs that do not contain barcoded rate pieces, preparation sequence, sack size, and labeling: *[Renumber items a through g as new items b through h. Insert new item a for scheme sorting as follows:]* a. 5-digit scheme; optional; for pieces meeting the standards in 301.3.0; 24-piece minimum, fewer pieces not permitted. 1. Line 1: L007, Column B. 2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable, followed by “FLTS 5D SCH NON BC.” 22.7 Optional Tray Preparation—Flat-Size Nonbarcoded Pieces *[Revise the introductory text in 22.7 to specify that pieces must meet the criteria in 301.3.0 and to add the container charge for trays as follows:]* As an option, mailers may place in flat-size trays pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0 that would normally be placed in ADC, origin mixed ADC, or mixed ADC sacks. The trays are subject to the container charge in 1.1.4 or 1.2.4. Pieces must not be secured in bundles and are not subject to a bundle charge. Mailers must group pieces together for each 5-digit scheme, 5-digit, 3-digit scheme, 3-digit, and ADC destination as follows: 23.0 Preparing Carrier Route Periodicals 23.4 Preparation—Flat-Size Pieces and Irregular Parcels 23.4.2 Exception to Sacking *[Revise the introductory text in 23.4.2 to specify when mailers do not pay the container charge as follows:]* Sacking is not required for bundles prepared for and entered at a DDU when the mailer unloads bundles under 29.4.6. Mail presented under this exception is not subject to the container charge (but is still subject to the bundle charges). Mailers must prepare unsacked bundles as follows: 25.0 Preparing Flat-Size Periodicals With Barcodes 25.1 Basic Standards 25.1.1 General *[Revise 25.1.1 to reference 301.3.0 as follows:]* Each piece must meet the physical standards in 301.3.0 or in 26.0. Bundle, sack, and tray preparation are subject to 18.0 through 21.0 and this section. Trays and sacks must bear the appropriate barcoded container labels under 708.6.0. 25.1.5 Bundle Preparation *[Revise 25.1.5 for clarity as follows:]* All pieces must be prepared in bundles (except under 25.6) and meet the following requirements: a. Pieces that meet the standards in 301.3.0 must be prepared in separate bundles from pieces that meet the standards in 26.0. c. Each bundle of pieces prepared under 301.3.0 and each bundle of pieces prepared under 26.0 must separately meet the bundle minimums in 25.4. d. Bundles may contain fewer than six pieces when the mailpieces are too thick or too heavy to create a six-piece bundle. Piece rate eligibility is not affected if the total number of pieces bundled for a presort destination meets or exceeds the minimum for rate eligibility under 14.0. 25.1.6 Scheme Bundle Preparation *[Revise 25.1.6 as follows:]* Pieces must be prepared in 5-digit scheme bundles for those 5-digit ZIP Codes identified in L007 and in 3-digit scheme bundles for those 3-digit ZIP Codes identified in L008. These bundles must meet the additional standards in 18.4i or 18.4r. 25.1.7 Sack Preparation *[Revise 25.1.7 as follows:]* Mailers may combine bundles of pieces prepared under 301.3.0 and bundles of pieces prepared under 26.0 in the same sack, with the exception of 5-digit scheme sacks, which may contain only pieces prepared under 301.3.0. 25.1.8 Exception—Barcoded and Nonbarcoded Flats on Pallets *[Revise 25.1.8 as follows:]* When the physical dimensions of the mailpieces in a Periodicals mailing meet the definition of both a letter-size piece and a machinable barcoded flat-size piece, the entire job may be prepared, merged, and palletized under 705.9.0 through 705.13.0. The following standards apply: a. The nonbarcoded portion is paid at the nonbarcoded rates. b. Mailing jobs prepared entirely in sacks and claiming this exception must be cobundled under 705.11.0. c. As an alternative to 705.9.0 through 705.13.0, if a portion of the job is prepared as palletized barcoded flats, the nonbarcoded portion may be prepared as palletized flats and paid at nonbarcoded machinable and carrier route rates. The nonbarcoded rate pieces that cannot be placed on ADC or finer pallets may be prepared as flats in sacks and paid at the nonbarcoded rates. *[Renumber 25.2 through 25.4 as new 25.3 through 25.5. Insert new 25.2 as follows:]* 25.2 Physical Standards Each flat-size piece must be rectangular and must meet the standards in 301.3.0 or, for 5-digit barcoded pieces, in 26.0. 25.3 Bundling and Labeling Preparation sequence, bundle size, and labeling: *[Revise items a and c to require scheme bundling as follows:]* a. 5-digit scheme (required for pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0); six-piece minimum (fewer pieces permitted under 25.1.5); OEL required. c. 3-digit scheme (required for pieces meeting the criteria in 301.3.0); six-piece minimum (fewer pieces permitted under 25.1.5); OEL required. 25.4 Sacking and Labeling For mailing jobs that also contain a nonbarcoded rate mailing, see 25.1.10 and 705.9.0. Other mailing jobs are prepared, sacked, and labeled as follows: *[Revise item a as follows:]* a. 5-digit scheme, required at 24 pieces, fewer pieces not permitted; may contain 5-digit scheme bundles only; labeling: 25.6 Optional Tray Preparation—Flat-Size Barcoded Pieces *[Revise the introductory text in renumbered 25.6 to specify that pieces must meet the criteria in 301.3.0 and to add the container charge for trays as follows:]* As an option, mailers may place in trays pieces prepared under 301.3.0 that would normally be placed in ADC, origin mixed ADC, or mixed ADC sacks. The trays are subject to the container charge in 1.1.4 or 1.2.4. Pieces must not be secured in bundles. Mailers must group together pieces for each 5-digit scheme, 5-digit, 3-digit scheme, 3-digit, and ADC destination as follows: *[Renumber 26.0 through 29.0 as 27.0 through 30.0. Insert new 26.0 as follows:]* 26.0 Alternative Physical Criteria for Flat-Size Periodicals 26.1 General Prepare barcoded flat-size pieces according to 25.0 above. Pieces may meet the physical criteria in 26.0 or in 301.3.0, but mailers cannot combine these two types of flat-size pieces in the same bundle. 26.2 Weight and Size The maximum weight for each piece is 4.4 pounds. The following minimum and maximum dimensions apply (determine length and height according to 301.1.2): a. Minimum height is 5 inches. Maximum height is 12 inches. b. Minimum length is 6 inches. Maximum length is 15 inches. c. Minimum thickness is 0.009 inch. Maximum thickness is 1.25 inches. 26.3 Address Placement on Folded Pieces Mailers must design folded pieces so that the address is in view when the final folded edge is to the right and any intermediate bound or folded edge is at the bottom of the piece. Unbound flat-size pieces must be at least double-folded. 26.4 Flexibility and Deflection Pieces prepared under 26.0 are not subject to the standards for flexibility in 301.1.4 or the standards for deflection in 301.3.2.4. 26.5 Additional Criteria Pieces must meet the standards for polywrap coverings in 301.3.3; protrusions and staples in 301.3.4; tabs, wafer seals, tape, and glue in 301.3.5; and uniform thickness and exterior format in 301.3.6. 27.0 Combining Multiple Editions or Publications *[Reorganize and revise renumbered 27.0 to add the definition and standards for copalletized mailings. The experimental copalletization drop-ship classifications in 709.3.0 and 709.4.0 expire, and all mailers may copalletize as follows:]* 27.1 Description Mailers may prepare Periodicals publications as a combined mailing by merging copies or bundles of copies to achieve the finest presort level possible or to reduce the total Outside-County postage. Each publication in a combined mailing must be authorized (or pending authorization) to mail at Periodicals rates. Mailers may use the following methods: a. Mailers may comail individually addressed copies of different editions of a Periodicals publication (one title) or individually addressed copies of different Periodicals publications (more than one title) to obtain finer presort levels. b. Mailers may place two or more copies of different Periodicals publications (more than one title), and/or multiple editions of the same publication in the same mailing wrapper or firm bundle and present it as one addressed piece to a single addressee to reduce the per piece charge. c. Mailers may copalletize separately presorted bundles of different Periodicals titles and editions to achieve minimum pallet weights. Mailers do not have to achieve the finest pallet presort level possible. 27.2 Authorization 27.2.1 Basic Standards Each mailer must be authorized to comail or copalletize mailings under 27.1a and 27.1c by Business Mailer Support (see 608.8.1 for address). Requests for authorization must show: a. The mailer's name and address. b. The mailing office. c. Procedures and quality control measures for the combined mailing. d. The expected date of the first mailing. e. A sample of the standardized documentation. 27.2.2 Denial If the application is denied, the mailer or consolidator may reapply at a later date, or submit additional information needed to support the request. 27.2.3 Termination An authorization may not exceed 2 years. Business Mailer Support may take action to terminate an authorization at any time, by written notice, if the mailer does not meet the standards. 27.3 Minimum Volume The following minimum volume standards apply: a. For comailings prepared under 27.1a, multiple publications or editions are combined to meet the required minimum volume per bundle, sack, or tray for the rate claimed. b. For combined mailings prepared under 27.1b, the minimum volume requirements in 22.0, 23.0, or 25.0 apply for the rate claimed. c. For copalletized mailings prepared under 27.1c, the minimum volume requirements for pallets in 705.8.5.3 apply for the rate claimed. 27.4 Labeling Mailers must label all containers in a combined mailing as either “NEWS” (see 21.1.3) or “PER” as follows: a. If at least 51% of the total number of copies in the combined mailing can qualify for “NEWS” treatment then all containers in the mailing are labeled “NEWS,” unless the mailer chooses to use “PER.” b. If less than 51% of the total number of copies in a combined mailing can qualify for “NEWS” treatment then all containers in the mailing are labeled “PER.” 27.5 Documentation Each mailing must be accompanied by documentation meeting the standards in 17.0, as well as any additional mailing information requested by the USPS to support the postage claimed (such as advertising percentage and weight per copy). The following additional standards apply: a. Presort documentation required under 708.1.0 must show the total number of addressed pieces and total number of copies for each publication and each edition in the combined mailing claimed at the carrier route, 5-digit, 3-digit, ADC, and mixed ADC rates. The mailer also must provide a list, by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix, of the number of addressed pieces for each publication and each edition claimed at any destination entry discount. b. Copalletized mailing documentation must consolidate and identify each title and version (or edition) in the mailing. Mailers may use codes in the summary heading to represent each title and version (or edition) presorted together on pallets. The documentation must include presort and pallet reports showing by title and version (or edition) how the bundles are presorted and where they will be entered. 27.6 Postage Statements Mailers must prepare postage statements for a combined mailing as follows: a. Copy weight and advertising percentage determine whether separate postage statements are required for editions of the same publication: 1. If the copy weight and advertising percentage for all editions of a publication are the same, mailers may report all the editions on the same postage statement or each edition on a separate postage statement. 2. If the copy weight or the advertising percentage is different for each edition of a publication, mailers must report each edition on a separate postage statement. b. For a combined mailing prepared under 27.1a, mailers must prepare a separate postage statement that claims all applicable per piece, per pound charges, and bundle and container charges (if apportioned) for each publication or edition. The mailer must annotate on, or attach to, each postage statement, the title and issue date of each publication or edition and indicate that the pieces were prepared as part of a combined mailing under 27.1a. c. For mailings under 27.1b, mailers must prepare a separate postage statement claiming the applicable per pound charges for each publication or edition in the combined mailing except as provided in 27.2.5a. The mailer must annotate on, or attach to, each postage statement, the title and issue date of each publication or edition and indicate that the copies were prepared as part of a combined mailing under 27.1b. The per piece charges must be claimed as follows: 1. If *all* copies in the combined mailing are eligible for the Classroom or Nonprofit discount, or if *all* copies are not eligible for the Classroom or Nonprofit discount, mailers may claim the per piece charges only on the postage statement for the publication that contains the highest amount of advertising. 2. If a portion of the copies in the combined mailing are eligible for the Classroom or Nonprofit discount and a portion are not eligible, mailers may claim the per piece charges only on the postage statement for the publication that contains the highest amount of advertising and is not eligible for the Classroom or Nonprofit discount. The Classroom or Nonprofit per piece discount must not be claimed. d. For copalletized mailings under 27.1c, mailers must prepare a separate postage statement for each publication in the mailing. One consolidated postage statement and a register of mailings for each publication must accompany mailings consisting of different editions or versions of the same publication. 27.7 Postage Payment Each mailing must meet the postage payment standards in 16.0. For copalletized mailings under 27.1c, mailers must pay postage at the post office serving the facility where consolidation takes place, except that postage for publications authorized under the Centralized Postage Payment
(CPP)system may be paid to the Pricing and Classification Service Center (see 608.8.4.1 for address). 27.8 Deposit of Mail Each publication in a combined mailing must be authorized (or pending authorization) for original entry or additional entry at the post office where the mailing is entered. For copalletized mailings under 27.1c, mailers must enter each mailing at the post office serving the facility where consolidation takes place. 29.0 Destination Entry Rate Eligibility 29.1 Basic Standards 29.1.1 Rate Application *[Revise renumbered 29.1.1 to eliminate the pallet discounts and add the new container and bundle rates as follows:]* Outside-County mail may qualify for destination area distribution center
(DADC)rates or destination sectional center facility
(DSCF)rates under 29.3 or 29.4. Carrier route rate pieces may qualify for destination delivery unit
(DDU)rates under 29.5. Outside-County pieces are subject to the Outside-County bundle rates in 1.1.3 or 1.2.3 and the Outside-County container rates in 1.1.4 or 1.2.4. For all destination entry rate pieces: a. An individual bundle, tray, sack, or pallet may contain pieces claimed at different destination entry pound rates. b. In-County carrier route rate addressed pieces may qualify for the DDU discount under 29.5. c. The advertising and nonadvertising portions may be eligible for DADC, DSCF, or DDU pound rates based on the entry facility and the address on the piece. *[Further renumber 29.2 through 29.4 as 29.3 through 29.5. Insert new 29.2 as follows:]* 29.2 Destination Bulk Mail Center 29.2.1 Definition For this standard, destination bulk mail center
(DBMC)includes the facilities in Exhibit 346.3.1, or a USPS-designated facility. 29.2.2 Eligibility DBMC container rates apply as follows: a. Pieces must be prepared in bundles on ADC or more finely presorted pallets or in sacks or trays on ADC or more finely presorted pallets under 705.8.0. b. Mailers may claim a DBMC container rate if the facility ZIP Code (as shown on Line 1 of the corresponding container label) is within the service area of the BMC or ASF at which the container is deposited, as shown in Exhibit 346.3.1. 29.3 Destination Area Distribution Center 29.3.3 Rates [ *Revise renumbered 29.3.3 to reflect the new nonadvertising rate structure as follows:* ] DADC rates include a nonadvertising pound rate and, if applicable, an advertising pound rate. 29.4 Destination Sectional Center Facility 29.4.3 Rates [ *Revise renumbered 29.4.3 to reflect the new nonadvertising rate structure as follows:* ] DSCF rates include a nonadvertising pound rate and, if applicable, an advertising pound rate. 29.5 Destination Delivery Unit 29.5.3 Rates [ *Revise renumbered 29.5.3 to reflect the new nonadvertising rate structure as follows:* ] DDU rates for Outside-County include a nonadvertising pound rate and, if applicable, an advertising pound rate. DDU rates for In-County consist of a pound charge and a per piece discount off the addressed piece rate. 30.0 Additional Entry 30.2 Authorization 30.2.1 Filing [ *Add new last sentence to renumbered 30.2.1 as follows:* ] The publisher is responsible for timely filing of all forms and supporting documentation to establish, modify, or cancel an additional entry. Under the standards for combining mailings on pallets in 27.0, consolidators may apply for additional entry authorizations on behalf of publishers at the post office serving the consolidator's facility. 708 Technical Specifications 1.0 Standardized Documentation for First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Flat-Size Bound Printed Matter 1.2 Format and Content For First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Standard Mail, and flat-size Bound Printed Matter, standardized documentation includes: c. For mail in trays or sacks, the body of the listing reporting these required elements: [ *Delete item c8, renumber item c9 as new item c8, and add new item c9 as follows:* ] 9. For Periodicals mailings that contain both In-County and Outside-County pieces, include a separate “Container Charge” and “Bundle Charge” column. The body of the listing must indicate which trays, sacks and bundles are subject to the container or bundle charges and a total or, optionally, a running total. d. For bundles on pallets, the body of the listing reporting these required elements: [ *Renumber item d7 as item d8. Add new item d7 as follows:* ] 7. For Periodicals mailings that contain both In-County and Outside-County pieces, include a separate “Container Charge” and “Bundle Charge” column. The body of the listing must indicate which pallets and bundles are subject to the container or bundle charges and a total or, optionally, a running total. [ *Revise item e as follows:* ] e. At the end of the documentation, a summary report of the total number of pieces mailed at each postage rate for each mailing reported on the listing by postage payment method (and by entry point for drop shipment mailings) and the total number of pieces in each mailing. This information must correspond to the information reported on the postage statement(s) for the pieces reported. For Periodicals mailings, documentation also must provide: 1. A summary of the total number of each type of bundle in the mailing and, optionally, the total bundle charge paid. Report only bundles subject to the Outside-County bundle rate under 1.1.3 or 1.2.3. 2. A summary of the total number of each type of container in the mailing and, optionally, the total container charge paid. Report only trays, sacks, and pallets subject to the Outside-County container rates under 1.1.4 or 1.2.4. 3. For combined mailings, a summary by individual mailer of the number of each type of bundle and container in the mailing and, optionally, the bundle and container rate paid. Report only bundles, trays, sacks, and pallets subject to the Outside-County bundle and container rates under 1.1.3 or 1.2.3 and 1.1.4 or 1.2.4. 4. A summary of the total number of copies for each zone, including In-County, DDU, SCF, and ADC rates. A separate summary report is not required if a PAVE-certified postage statement facsimile generated by the presort software used to prepare the standardized documentation is presented for each mailing. 5. Additional data if necessary to calculate the amount of postage for the mailing (or additional postage due, or postage to be refunded) if nonidentical-weight pieces that do not bear the correct postage at the rate for which they qualify are included in the mailing, or if different rates of postage are affixed to pieces in the mailing. [ *Insert new 1.8 as follows:* ] 1.8 Bundle and Container Reports for Periodicals Mail A publisher must present documentation to support the actual number of bundles and containers of each edition of an issue as explained in 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 below. 1.8.1 Bundle Report The bundle report must contain, at a minimum, the following elements: a. Container identification number. b. Container type. c. Container presort level. d. Bundle ZIP Code. e. Bundle level. f. Rate category. g. Number of copies by version in the bundle. h. An indicator showing which bundles are subject to the bundle charge. 1.8.2 Container Report The container report must contain, at a minimum, the following elements: a. Container identification number. b. Container type. c. Container level. d. Container entry level (origin, DDU, DSCF, DADC, or DBMC). e. An indicator showing which containers are subject to the container charge. 709 Experimental Classifications and Rates [ *Delete 3.0* , Outside-County Periodicals Copalletization Drop-Ship Classification; *and 4.0* , Outside-County Periodicals Copalletization Drop-Ship Discounts for High-Editorial, Heavy-Weight, Small-Circulation Publications. *Renumber remaining sections 5.0 and 6.0 as new 3.0 and 4.0. The experimental copalletization discounts expire and are replaced by the new rate structure for Periodicals mail in 707.* ] Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E7-10139 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976; FRL-8318-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Control of Gasoline Volatility AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Ohio on February 14, 2006, and October 6, 2006, establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP)fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Ohio has developed this fuel requirement to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC)in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving Ohio's fuel requirement into the Ohio SIP because EPA has found that the requirement is necessary for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to achieve the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. On March 29, 2007, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)proposing to approve the SIP revision. During the comment period EPA received a number of comments both supporting and opposing the approval of the fuel requirement. This document summarizes the comments received, EPA's responses, and finalizes the approval of Ohio's SIP revision to establish a RVP limit of 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi)for gasoline sold in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. DATES: This final rule is effective on May 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0976. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information
(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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, at
(312)886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312)886-6061, *acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What is the background for this action? II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. What is the background for this action? On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated 5 counties in the Cincinnati, Ohio area (Hamilton, Butler, Clinton, Warren and Clermont counties—Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN) and 4 counties in the Dayton, Ohio area (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery counties—Dayton-Springfield, OH) as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Both areas have been designated Basic nonattainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard and they are required to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than June 2009. As part of the State of Ohio's
(Ohio)efforts to bring these areas into attainment, the State is adopting and implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control of emissions from auto refinishing operations, the reduction of VOC emission from portable fuel containers, the adoption of industrial solvent degreasing rules, and the implementation of a 7.8 pound per square inch
(psi)RVP fuel program. Ohio originally proposed to replace the State's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Cincinnati and Dayton, which was discontinued by the State on December 31, 2005, with the requirement to supply 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to these areas starting in 2006. However, the State modified its original request and asked that EPA act on the state's fuel waiver request to allow the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in both areas. On February 14, 2006, Ohio submitted the fuel waiver request as a SIP revision. The submittal included adopted amended rules under Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-72 “Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements” to require the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas beginning on June 1, 2006. Soon after the State's February 14, 2006 submittal, the American Petroleum Institute
(API)appealed the State's 7.8 psi RVP rule on the basis that there was insufficient time to implement the rule and that EPA had not yet issued a waiver under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, as amended. EPA conducted an informal survey of gasoline suppliers and determined that there was not enough 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to supply the Cincinnati and Dayton nonattainment areas during the 2006 ozone season. As part of the State's settlement with API on its appeal, Ohio agreed to revise the rule to delay the effective date of the rule until twelve months following the approval of a fuel waiver by EPA in order to ensure that there is sufficient time for the regulated community to prepare for the change. On July 10, 2006, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA)adopted amended rules under the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-72 “Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirements” to modify the implementation date for the required use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas to be one year after the approval of a fuel waiver under CAA amendments section 211(c)(4)(C). Public hearings on the amended rules were held on June 2, 2006, in Columbus, Ohio and the rules became effective at the state level on July 17, 2006. The OEPA submitted these amended low-RVP rules to EPA as a revision to the SIP on October 6, 2006. As part of the October 6, 2006 submittal, OEPA included additional technical support for the SIP revision, including documentation supporting the State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. On March 29, 2007, EPA proposed approval of the State's SIP revision to establish a 7.8 psi low-RVP fuel program in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. (See 72 FR 14729). As detailed in the proposed approval, EPA found the low-RVP fuel program necessary pursuant to Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. In addition, EPA also proposed approval of the State's SIP revision as consistent with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct). II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking? During the comment period for the March 29, 2007, proposal we received several comments from 16 commenters including the API and the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) of Dayton, Ohio. Six of the commenters, including RAPCA, were in favor of the proposed fuel and supported EPA approval. A number of commenters also submitted adverse comments that were outside the scope of the proposal (e.g., approval of reformulated gasoline, corn ethanol). A summary of the relevant portions of the adverse comments received on the proposed rule and EPA's response to these comments is presented below. EPA does not view the adverse comments we received as a basis to disapprove the SIP revision. We believe the SIP revision meets the applicable requirements of the CAA, and we are approving it. *Comment:* API states “API supports Ohio's revision to the rule,” providing for low RVP gasoline as of one year after EPA approval of the rule. API then states, “However, it would be unlawful for USEPA to approve this SIP revision.” API thus implicitly recommends that EPA not approve Ohio's rule. *Response:* EPA appreciates API's support for Ohio's rule change allowing one year lead time from EPA final approval. However, EPA disagrees with API's contention that approving Ohio's rule would be unlawful, and EPA disagrees with API's recommendation that EPA not approve Ohio's rule. The discussion below addresses API's more specific comments. *Comment:* API repeats some of the modeling uncertainties that EPA noted in its proposed rulemaking, and concludes that “EPA should require that States seeking approval under 211(c)(4)(C) submit accurate modeling and back-up analysis as part of the waiver request. Providing it later with an attainment demonstration is too late to be useful for EPA's fuel waiver analysis.” *Response:* EPA must make judgments as to whether it has the best available modeling information and whether the information is of adequate quality to support the conclusion being reached. “EPA has undoubted power to use predictive models so long as it explains the assumptions and methodology used in preparing the model and provides a complete analytic defense should the model be challenged.” *Appalachian Power Company* v. *EPA* , 251 F.3d 1026, 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). EPA also recognizes that any modeling analysis, and any projection of future conditions, inherently has uncertainties. “That a model is limited or imperfect is not, in itself a reason to remand agency decisions based upon it.” *Id.* “It is only when the model bears no rational relationship to the characteristics of the data to which it is applied that [courts] will hold that the use of the model is arbitrary and capricious.” *Appalachian Power Company* v. *EPA* , 135 F.3d 791, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Thus, in this instance EPA believes that it is using the best available modeling information, that the information is of adequate quality to find low RVP fuel necessary, and that the commenter has provided no rationale for EPA to believe otherwise. Further, regardless of what information the state provides, directly or indirectly, EPA's obligation is to use available information to judge whether a fuel program is necessary. EPA agrees that information that Ohio is preparing for submittal with its attainment demonstration will not be available for EPA's fuel waiver analysis, but notes that such information is not required for purposes of making a necessity finding under either section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) or EPA's August 1997 “Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP Requirements in Ozone SIPs.” EPA believes that the modeling information already available is adequate for finding low RVP fuel necessary. *Comment:* API states that the State of Ohio has not made its “necessity” showing because there are non-fuel measures (e.g., E-check) that are reasonable and practicable. API points out that OEPA has already adopted and implemented E-check for Dayton-Cincinnati, thus, proving that this control measure is both reasonable and practicable. API also contends that EPA provides no independent analysis or review of the non-fuel measures and that “it appears that EPA did not review the reasons OEPA gives for why E-check is not reasonable or practicable, as they do not comment in their proposal on OEPA's rationale”. *Response:* EPA agrees with API's conclusion that E-check is a reasonable and practical control measure. However, EPA views the issue of whether E-check is reasonable or practicable as irrelevant in making a “necessity” determination because Cincinnati and Dayton's E-check program is currently part of the existing SIP and, thus, is still a required control measure in both areas regardless of whether the program is currently operating or not. In addition, the modeling analysis used in demonstrating “necessity” reflects the emission reductions associated with the E-check as if the program was still operating. EPA has concluded that even with the implementation of all non-fuel control measures determined to be reasonable and practicable, including E-check, additional VOC reductions are necessary to achieve the ozone NAAQS. Further, EPA concluded, based on the information available to us, that no other reasonable and practicable non-fuel measures were available to the State that would achieve these needed emission reductions in a timely manner. Thus the Agency concludes that the 7.8 psi RVP fuel program is necessary for attainment of the applicable ozone NAAQS. EPA disagrees with API's assertion that EPA did not review and take into consideration the reasons OEPA outlined in the State's submittal regarding why the State considered E-check to be unreasonable or impracticable. As provided above, EPA reviewed OEPA's rationale but determined that it was irrelevant in making the necessity demonstration because E-check is a required program in Ohio's SIP. Regarding API's concern that EPA did not provide an independent analysis or review of the non-fuel measures, EPA provided the opportunity for the public to review and comment on all aspects of Ohio's submittal including the evaluation of the non-fuel measures considered by the State. EPA did not receive any specific comments questioning either the list of non-fuel measures considered or the results of the State's analysis. EPA believes that the State's assessment adequately identifies and evaluates non-fuel measures. *Comment:* An anonymous commenter urges that EPA not approve the 7.8 RVP gasoline requirement due to deficiencies in the showing that low RVP fuel is necessary. First, the commenter objects to the estimation of the emission reduction between 2008 and 2009 by calculating one seventh of the emission reduction between 2002 and 2009, since commenter believes that an “analysis of whether [pertinent emission reductions are] linear” would show that emission reductions occur disproportionately in early years of control programs and only minimally later. Second, the commenter observes that the Dayton and Cincinnati nonattainment areas are subject to a requirement “ ‘to submit an attainment demonstration that relies on photochemical grid modeling,’ ” and the commenter believes that “a completed attainment demonstration seems to be necessary” to “properly determine whether a low-RVP fuel is necessary.” Third, the commenter believes that “a ‘weight of evidence’ analysis is needed with such modeling.” The commenter concludes that “USEPA should fully evaluate the necessity of such lower RVP fuel in accordance with section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act.” *Response:* EPA used the best available information to evaluate whether Ohio's low RVP fuel program is necessary. First, the most significant VOC emission reductions between 2002 and 2009 are from mobile sources, which are yielding relatively linear emission reductions resulting from a steady rate of replacement of old dirtier vehicles with new cleaner vehicles. (Emissions for NO <sup>X</sup> declined more than the average 2002 to 2009 rate in the early days of the NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call program and can be expected to decline at less than that rate in the future, but EPA's approximation of necessary emission reductions applied only to VOC emissions.) EPA considered this situation in deciding to apply an assumption of approximately linear reductions, and EPA continues to believe that the best available information is based on an assumption that VOC emissions are undergoing a basically linear decline. Second, Dayton and Cincinnati are indeed subject to a requirement for attainment demonstrations, for which EPA recommends use of photochemical grid modeling, but, under section 211(c)(4)(C)(i), EPA may make a necessity finding “even if the plan for the area does not contain an approved demonstration of timely attainment.” The attainment plans are not due until June 15, 2007, and even though this requirement applies in the relatively near future, EPA has no obligation to delay action on Ohio's fuel request waiting for either that date or Ohio's actual submittal. EPA believes it has adequate information already to evaluate the necessity of the fuel restrictions requested by Ohio. Third, EPA indeed recommends “weight of evidence” analyses as a supplement to attainment demonstrations in some cases. However, just as section 211(c)(4)(C) provides that an approved attainment demonstration is not a prerequisite for making necessity findings, EPA believes that complete “weight of evidence” analyses are not a prerequisite for making necessity findings. EPA expects that Ohio will submit weight of evidence analyses at the same time it submits its attainment demonstrations. In the meantime, in the absence of a complete submittal by Ohio addressing the potential for model under-prediction as well as over-prediction, EPA believes that the best assessment of the necessity of a low RVP fuel program in Southwest Ohio is based directly on the available modeling information. In summary, EPA concludes that an evaluation in accordance with section 211(c)(4)(C) using the best available information indicates that Ohio's requested low RVP fuel is necessary in Southwest Ohio. *Comment:* A commenter questions whether the benefits of low RVP gasoline will be significant. The commenter observes that there are 130 billion tons of air above the Cincinnati/Dayton area, so that an emission reduction of 5.2 tons per day would only reduce concentrations by 0.000000004 percent. Finally, the commenter recommends use of a “Grease Gator”, marketed by Solvent Systems, for cleaning parts without emitting VOC. *Response:* Human health is impaired even at very low air pollutant concentrations. The ozone standard is 0.08 parts per million, or 0.000008 percent of the molecules in ambient air. EPA set the air quality standard at this “trace” level based on studies showing that even seemingly negligible concentrations of ozone can adversely affect human health. Typical VOC concentrations sufficient to cause violations of this standard are in the same fraction of a part per million range, attributable in the Cincinnati/Dayton area to emissions of about 300 tons per day. Given the low concentrations at which ozone impairs health, the implementation of low RVP gasoline will provide a significant fraction of the reduction of VOC emissions needed in this area. It should be noted, however, that in reviewing this SIP revision EPA is limited to determining whether the legal criteria for approval are met. The issue before us here is whether the criteria for approval in 211(c)(4)(C) are met, and we have determined they have been met. EPA appreciates the recommendation of a parts cleaning system with zero VOC emissions. *Comment:* Several commenters raised concerns with the concept of further expanding the use of boutique fuels. One commenter goes on to say that such expansion will further reduce refinery capacity/efficiency, is likely to cost consumers more, and has the potential to cause the Ohio areas to face a gasoline shortage in the event of a fuel disruption scenario. Another commenter is concerned that having special blends in different parts of the country will cause shortages. *Response:* Due to the heightened concern over supply and price issues and the potential for boutique fuel programs to exacerbate these issues, Congress directly addressed the issue of boutique fuels in several ways in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). EPAct placed further restrictions on EPA's authority to approve a state fuel program in the SIP. Under EPAct, EPA may approve a state fuel program for a SIP only if a fuel is already approved in a SIP for a state in that Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD), and the approval does not increase the total number of state fuels on EPA's list of fuels. Further, where there is room on the list, prior to approval of a new fuel, EPA, with Department of Energy consultation, must find no adverse impact on fuel supply and distribution in either the affected area or contiguous areas. The 7.8 psi RVP fuel that we are approving today is not a new fuel because it is already approved in at least one SIP (Indiana, (61 FR 4895, (February 9, 1996)) in the PADD where Ohio is located. EPA therefore, does not believe that it is required to make a finding of no adverse impact effects of a 7.8 psi RVP fuel on fuel supply and distribution in either Dayton and Cincinnati or the contiguous areas. EPA also believes that this rule fully complies with the applicable EPAct requirements. Further, although we received comments from API on this action, none of the comments received from the industry side raise any concerns with the industry's ability to adequately and efficiently supply the 7.8 psi RVP fuel to the affected areas. Further, API's comments state that “API and OEPA reached an agreement on April 4, 2006, that 7.8 RVP fuel will not be required in Dayton-Cincinnati until one year after final approval by U.S.EPA. API supports this revised rule as in the best interest of the State of Ohio and its citizens”. III. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Ohio on February 14, 2006, and October 6, 2006, establishing a 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This action is effective on May 31, 2007. EPA is approving Ohio's fuel requirement into the SIP because EPA has found that the requirement is necessary for Southwest Ohio to achieve the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's approval is consistent with the boutique fuel provisions of section 211(c)(4)(C) enacted in EPAct. EPA finds that there is good cause for this action to become effective by May 31, 2007. The May 31, 2007 effective date for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, approves Ohio's SIP revision requiring the use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas one year after EPA approval of the fuel waiver request under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. RVP control requirements are summer control programs that are generally implemented during the summer ozone season beginning on June 1. Making this rule effective before the beginning of the summer ozone season, will allow the regulated industry to avoid having to address multiple RVP requirements during the 2008 ozone season. In addition, as noted above, the regulated industry has had advance notice of this requirement, and the API has agreed to a settlement with provisions for the 7.8 psi RVP fuel in these areas twelve months following the approval of a fuel waiver by EPA. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on May 31, 2007. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant regulatory action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( *See* Section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 18, 2007. Gary Gulezian, Regional Administrator, Region 5. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart KK—Ohio 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(138) to read as follows: § 52.1870 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(138)On February 14, 2006, and October 6, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan. This revision is for the purpose of establishing a gasoline Reid vapor pressure
(RVP)limit of 7.8 pounds per square inch
(psi)for gasoline sold in the Cincinnati and Dayton 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas which includes Hamilton, Butler, Clinton, Warren, Clermont, Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery counties.
(i)Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC)are incorporated by reference.
(A)OAC Rule 3745-72-01: “Applicability”, effective July 17, 2006 except for 3745-72-01(E).
(B)OAC Rule 3745-72-02: “Definitions”, effective July 17, 2006.
(C)OAC Rule 3745-72-03: “Gasoline volatility standards and general provisions”, effective January 16, 2006.
(D)OAC Rule 3745-72-04: “Transfer documentation and recordkeeping”, effective January 16, 2006.
(E)OAC Rule 3745-72-05: “Liability”, effective January 16, 2006.
(F)OAC Rule 3745-72-06: “Defenses”, effective January 16, 2006.
(G)OAC Rule 3745-72-07: “Special provisions for alcohol blends”, effective January 16, 2006.
(H)OAC Rule 3745-72-08: “Quality assurance and test methods”, effective January 16, 2006.
(ii)Additional materials.
(A)Letter from Ohio EPA Director Joseph P. Koncelik to Regional Administrator Thomas Skinner, dated February 14, 2006.
(B)Letter from Ohio EPA Director Joseph P. Koncelik to Regional Administrator Mary Gade, dated October 6, 2006. [FR Doc. E7-10054 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200714(a); FRL-8317-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of Florida; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Power Plants Subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the State of Florida, through a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submittal addressing New Source Review
(NSR)Reform requirements, requested that EPA grant it full approval to implement the State's Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)program for electric power plants subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. EPA is proposing to approve this specific request under section 110 of the Act. EPA intends to take action on all other portions of Florida's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal in a future rulemaking. DATES: This direct final rule is effective July 24, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 25, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Fortin.Kelly@EPA.gov.* 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9066. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130”, Air Permits 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:* Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits 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-2006-0130”. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://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 *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail 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 *http://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 *http://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: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits 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)562-9117. Ms. Fortin can also be reached via electronic mail at *fortin.kelly@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Part C of the CAA establishes the PSD program, the preconstruction review program that applies to areas of the country that have attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAA sections 160-169, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. In such areas, a major stationary source may not begin construction or undertake certain modifications without first obtaining a PSD permit. In broad overview, the program
(1)limits the impact of new or modified major stationary sources on ambient air quality and
(2)requires the application of state-of-the-art pollution control technology, known as best available control technology. CAA section 165, 42 U.S.C. 7475. EPA has promulgated two largely identical sets of regulations to implement the PSD program. One set, at 40 CFR 52.21, contains EPA's own federal PSD program under which EPA is the permitting authority in states operating without an EPA-approved state program. The other set of regulations contain minimum requirements that state PSD programs must meet to be approved by EPA as part of a SIP. 40 CFR 51.166. Over time, most states have received EPA approval for their PSD programs. In order to comply with the established minimum requirements of the CAA, the State of Florida adopted its own PSD regulations on June 10 and October 28, 1981. The Florida PSD program was initially approved by EPA into the Florida SIP on December 22, 1983. 48 FR 52713. The approval transferred to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP)the legal authority to process and issue PSD permits to sources in Florida that are required to obtain PSD permits. One category of sources not covered by EPA's 1983 approval of Florida's PSD program was electric power plants. This was because, at the time, a separate Florida law known as the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act
(PPSA)required permits for electric power plants to be issued solely by the PPSA's Site Certification Board, rather than by FDEP. Such a conflict between the PPSA and Florida's PSD program created impediments to implementation and enforcement of the State's PSD program by FDEP for such power plants and precluded EPA's SIP-approval of Florida's PSD program as to these sources. As a result, for electric power plants subject to the PPSA, FDEP has been operating under either a partial or full delegation of authority to implement the federal PSD program since 1983, while various attempts to amend the PPSA to correct the conflict were made. Currently, FDEP is operating under a full delegation of authority to implement the federal PSD program for electric power plants, following further amendments to the PPSA in 1993. In light of the 1993 amendments to the PPSA, the State has requested, through its February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal, that EPA grant Florida SIP-approval to implement the State's PSD program for electric power plants subject to the PPSA. EPA is approving this specific request under section 110 of the Act because there is no longer a conflict between the State's PSD regulations and the PPSA and because FDEP now has adequate and effective procedures for full implementation of the State's PSD program for sources in Florida, including electric power plants. II. Analysis of State's Request The statutory amendments to the PPSA made by the Florida legislature in 1993 form the basis of the State's request for SIP-approval of its PSD program for sources subject to the PPSA. Those amendments, which took effect on April 22, 1993, expressly provide that the “[D]epartment's action on a federally required new source review or prevention of significant deterioration permit shall differ from the actions taken by the siting board regarding the certification if the federally approved state implementation plan requires such a different action to be taken by the department. Nothing in this part [the PPSA] shall be construed to displace the department's authority as the final permitting entity under the federally approved permit program.” The amendments make clear that FDEP is the final permitting authority for PSD and new source review permits and can act in a manner different from the PPSA Siting Board if Florida's PSD or new source review regulations require such a different action. In addition, subsequent to the State's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal, the PPSA was again amended (on June 19, 2006), to among other things, wholly extricate the PSD permitting process from the PPSA process. See, Florida Public Health Code 403.0872. Specifically, language requiring that a PPSA application for certification include “documents necessary for the department to render a decision on any permit required pursuant to any federally delegated or approved permit program” was deleted from the PPSA; language requiring that FDEP's action on a PSD permit be based on the recommended order of the PPSA certification hearing was removed; and requirements that administrative procedures used in the issuance of PSD and operating permits follow the administrative procedures of the PPSA were also removed. EPA has reviewed the 1993 and June 19, 2006 amendments to the PPSA and concludes that they provide FDEP the authority to fully implement and enforce Florida's PSD program for electric power plants located within the State. III. Final Action EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the Florida SIP. This approval means that Florida's SIP-approved PSD program includes coverage of electric power plants in the State. EPA is not, in this rulemaking, taking any other action on Florida's February 3, 2006 NSR Reform SIP submittal. EPA intends to take action on the remaining portions of Florida's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal in a future rulemaking. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 24, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 25, 2007. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 24, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 24, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 16, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart K—Florida 2. Section 52.530 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(b)to read as follows: § 52.530 Significant deterioration of air quality.
(a)EPA approves the Florida Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, as incorporated into this chapter, for power plants subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
(b)[Reserved] [FR Doc. E7-10061 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-8317-5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of partial deletion of the rocky flats plant from the national priorities list. SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 8 announces the deletion of the Peripheral Operable Unit
(OU)of the Department of Energy
(DOE)Rocky Flats Plant and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3), also referred to as the Offsite Areas, encompassing approximately 25,413 acres, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Rocky Flats Plant means the property owned by the United States Government, also known as Rocky Flats, Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) as shown in figure 1. The Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the Central and Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2) which contain 1,308 and 4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which contains approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 referenced figures are available in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. EPA and the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), have determined that the Peripheral OU of the Rocky Flats Plant and OU 3 (Offsite Areas) poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate. This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain on the NPL. DATES: This partial deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 is effective on May 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129; *telephone number:* 1-800-227-8917 or 303-312-6734, *fax number:* 303-312-7150; *e-mail address:* *henneke.rob@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by the United States. Rocky Flats is located in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles south of Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities include the Cities of Arvada, Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. The majority of the Site is located in Jefferson County, with a small portion located in Boulder County, Colorado. Two OUs are present within the boundaries of the Site (the Peripheral OU and the Central OU), while OU 3 (Offsite Areas) encompasses property north, south, and primarily east of the Peripheral and Central OUs. This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within the Peripheral OU and OU 3. The Central OU is not included within this partial deletion action and will remain on the NPL. On March 13, 2007, EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11313) and local newspapers, announcing a thirty day public comment period, which proposed to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 from the NPL. Comments were received in the form of letters from CDPHE dated April 3, 2007 and from the City and County of Broomfield and City of Westminster, both April 12, 2007. The letters from the two cities were identical in terms of the comments each made. In all instances the state and the cities support the actions proposed in the notice of intent for partial deletion, however, the cities have other comments in their identical letters. The following are comments from the City and County of Broomfield and City of Westminster regarding the points-of-compliance as summarized: Broomfield/Westminster described that “this partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The point-of-compliance for the Central OU is located within the Peripheral OU. The partial deletion assumes all surface water leaving the Central OU flowing through the Peripheral OU will meet surface water quality standards at the site boundary. There is a potential for the drainages to become contaminated by contaminated surface water or contaminated sediment flowing through the drainages.” Broomfield/Westminster also added that “language in the **Federal Register** states the Department of Energy
(DOE)will be responsible for all future remedial actions required at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions. We support the language in the **Federal Register** . Our concern is the Department of Energy will only be evaluating surface water quality for uranium, plutonium, and americium as it flows from the Central OU. Other potential analytes that could be considered contaminants will not be evaluated to determine potential impacts to surface water or the drainages within the Peripheral OU.” In the Responsiveness Summary, EPA explained that DOE is required to evaluate uranium, plutonium and americium at five locations: The terminus of the A-series ponds (GS11 at the outfall of terminal pond A-4); the terminus of the B-series ponds (GS08 at the outfall of terminal pond B-5); the outfall of terminal pond C-2 (GS31), all of which are in the Central OU (DOE retained land); where Woman Creek meets Indiana (GS01); and where Walnut Creek meets Indiana (GS03). Prior to any release from the terminal ponds DOE is required to take pre-discharge samples. These samples include the three radionuclides mentioned above as well as nitrates. Based on extensive sampling throughout the life of the cleanup project these are the only constituents requiring ongoing evaluation at these locations. We have not found other constituents in the surface water at levels that exceed cleanup standards. Moreover, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment for Human Health and Ecological risk determined that the Peripheral OU is suitable for all uses. Therefore, monitoring of additional constituents is not needed in the Peripheral OU in order to protect human health and the environment. Broomfield/Westminster “are concerned that previous closure documents did not address how the points-of compliance would be secured and controlled if they are not in an area located within DOE's jurisdiction. It is very important to us, as a downstream community, to ensure the integrity of the monitoring stations within the deleted area are maintained and secured.” In the Responsiveness Summary, EPA explained that the CAD/ROD requires that DOE retain points-of-compliance in surface water at discharge points from the three terminal ponds (A-4, B-5 and C-2), as well as at the points-of-compliance near Indiana Street. DOE's operation and maintenance responsibilities require that the monitors remain secure and in working order. A feature of the compliance monitoring system is that automatic alerts are sent to DOE personnel who are responsible for operation and maintenance of the monitors anytime there is a malfunction with the equipment. Because of this feature, problems with the monitors are immediately identified and corrected. As a part of operation and maintenance activities, the Parties will determine if additional security measures to protect these monitoring locations are needed. Broomfield/Westminster “believe the protection of the monitoring stations within the proposed deleted area is a significant and valid concern because there were no institutional controls identified to protect the only enforceable monitoring stations at the site. EPA should be responsive and proactive and identify how these stations will be controlled and protected to prevent access to the general public. It is not good management to develop a protocol to protect the monitoring stations after their integrity has been jeopardized.” In the Responsiveness Summary, EPA agrees that protection of the monitoring stations at the site is important. Security of these monitoring stations has not been a problem in the past. The DOE, State, and EPA agree to review any future changes to the current uses and activities that could jeopardize the integrity of the monitors. Since DOE personnel receive automatic alerts whenever there are performance problems with the compliance monitors, implementation of other security measures is not necessary. The purpose of these monitors is to take samples during run-off events and the likelihood of tampering with the monitors during these events is less than the chances of failure occurring due to equipment break down. In either case, DOE personnel will be notified immediately and steps taken to correct the problems. Addition of security measures as suggested by Broomfield and Westminster will not add appreciably to the reliability of the monitors to take samples when flow events dictate. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede Agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: May 16, 2007. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. For the reasons set forth in the preamble title 40 part 300 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows. PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 2 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry for “Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)” by adding a note “P” so that it reads as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 2.—Federal Facilities Section State Site name City/county Notes a * * * * * * * CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Jefferson and Boulder Counties P * * * * * * * a * * * * * * * * * * P = Sites with partial deletion(s). [FR Doc. E7-10055 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 101 Friday, May 25, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28282; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-068-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing in-line fuel float switch fuses and wire protection at the left, right, and center forward spars. This proposed AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel S. Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5262; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28282; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-068-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0014, dated March 20, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing in-line fuel level float switch fuses and wire protection at the left, right, and center forward spars. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 149 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost 5 $80 $509 $909 117 $106,353 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28282; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-068-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0014, dated March 20, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Fuse Installation
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install in-line fuel level float switch fuses and wire protection at the left, right, and center forward spars, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0014, dated March 20, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10138 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28283; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-254-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time general visual inspection of frames between body station
(BS)360 and BS 907 to determine if certain support brackets of the air conditioning (A/C) outlet extrusions are installed; medium- and high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the frames around the attachment holes of the subject brackets; and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require installing new, improved fittings for all support brackets of the A/C outlet extrusions between BS 360 and BS 907. This proposed AD results from numerous reports of multiple cracks in the frames around the attachment holes of certain support brackets of the A/C outlet extrusions. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct frame cracking, which, if not corrected, could lead to a severed frame that, combined with cracking of the skin lap splice above stringer 10, could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6447; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28283; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-254-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received numerous reports of multiple cracks in the frame around the attachment holes of certain support brackets of the air conditioning (A/C) outlet extrusions on Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Investigation has revealed that the frame cracks occur due to fatigue caused by a combination of forward and aft loads from fuselage expansion, and down loads from fuselage deflection on the attached structure. The subject frame cracks radiate from one side of the attachment hole, nearest the frame flanges; further, frame cracks up to 0.6 inch long have also been found on the inboard flange of the body station
(BS)907 frame adjacent to the support bracket. With continued fatigue cycling, frame cracking, if not corrected, could lead to a severed frame that, combined with cracking of the skin lap splice above stringer 10, could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. The subject area on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes is almost identical to that on the affected Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Therefore, certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The inspection threshold specified for the Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -900, and -900 series airplanes is later than the total flight cycles accumulated by some Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes with reported cracks. We have determined that this is acceptable based on growth rate and cracking pattern of the cracks. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1544, dated October 4, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection
(GVI)of the frames between BS 360 and BS 907 to identify support brackets of the A/C outlet extrusions that have a two-rivet attachment fitting. The service bulletin also describes procedures for doing medium- and high-frequency eddy current (MFEC and HFEC) inspections for cracking of the frames around the attachment holes of the identified support brackets. The service bulletin also describes frame repair, if necessary, which includes installing reinforcing repair angles. The service bulletin also describes procedures for installing new, improved support fittings for all A/C outlet extrusions between BS 360 and BS 907. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Clarification of Purpose of GVI Operators should note that, although the service bulletin indicates that the GVI is part of the procedure to detect cracking in the areas previously described, the primary intent of the GVI is to determine which support brackets between BS 360 and BS 907 are attached to the airframe with two rivets. Only those support brackets are subject to the inspections for cracking specified by the service bulletin. Therefore, this proposed AD would require a GVI to identify those support brackets between BS 360 and BS 907 that are attached to the airframe with two rivets. Related Rulemaking This unsafe condition may also exist in Boeing Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Therefore, we have issued AD 2006-26-09, Amendment 39-14867 (72 FR 252, January 4, 2007), which has similar requirements, to address the unsafe condition in those airplane models. That unsafe condition, if uncorrected, could result in a severed frame that, combined with existing multi-site damage at the stringer 10 lap splice, could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,679 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 626 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Operators should note that special cold working tools and sleeves will be needed if any repair is required, which may increase costs. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost General visual inspection 1 No parts required $80 $50,080. MFEC and HFEC inspections Between 170 and 216 No parts required Between $13,600 and $17,280 Up to $10,817,280. Replace support fittings Between 258 and 346 Between $56,095 and $81,339 Between $76,735 and $109,019 Up to $68,245,894. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28283; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-254-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1544, dated October 4, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from numerous reports of multiple cracks in the frame around the attachment holes of the support bracket of the air conditioning (A/C) outlet extrusion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct frame cracking, which, if not corrected, could lead to a severed frame that, combined with cracking of the skin lap splice above stringer 10, could result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1544, dated October 4, 2006. Inspections
(g)Before the accumulation of 36,000 total flight cycles, or within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a general visual inspection to determine if the support bracket of any A/C outlet extrusion between body station
(BS)360 and BS 907 has a two-rivet attachment fitting, then do the actions described by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD; in accordance with part 2 of the accomplishment instructions of the service bulletin.
(1)For any subject support bracket not attached with a two-rivet attachment fitting, no further action is required by paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(2)For any subject support bracket having a two-rivet attachment fitting, do medium- and high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the frame around the attachment holes of the support bracket. If any cracking is discovered, before further flight, repair the cracking in accordance with part 3 of the accomplishment instructions of the service bulletin. Modification
(h)Before the accumulation of 36,000 total flight cycles, or within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the support fittings of all A/C outlet extrusions between BS 360 and BS 907 with new, improved support fittings, in accordance with part 4 of the accomplishment instructions of the service bulletin. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10137 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28281; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-238-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive replacement of the internal electrical feed-through connectors of the main fuel tank boost pumps. This proposed AD results from a report of cracking in the epoxy potting compound on the internal feed-through connector of the fuel boost pump in the area of the soldered wire connector lugs. We are proposing this AD to prevent a hazardous electrical path from the dry side to the wet side of the fuel boost pump through a cracked feed-through connector, which could create an ignition source on the wet side of the fuel boost pump and lead to subsequent explosion of the fuel tank. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • * DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6497; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28281; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-238-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report that, after close examination of the internal electrical circuit of the fuel boost pump, supplier tests revealed cracking in the epoxy potting compound on the feed-through connector in the area of the soldered wire connector lugs of several pumps. This condition, if not corrected, could allow a hazardous electrical path from the dry side to the wet side of the fuel boost pump through a cracked feed-through connector, which could create an ignition source on the wet side of the fuel boost pump and lead to subsequent explosion of the fuel tank. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes) and 767-28A0096 (for Model 767-400ER airplanes), both dated September 15, 2005, which describe procedures for repetitively replacing the internal electrical feed-through connectors of the main fuel tank boost pumps with new feed-through connectors. This may be accomplished by replacing the fuel boost pump with a new fuel boost pump or with a modified and re-identified fuel boost pump having a new feed-through connector installed. The alert service bulletins refer to Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin 5006003-28-A4, dated May 9, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing the feed-through connector of the fuel boost pump. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Boeing service information described previously. Interim Action We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking. Costs of Compliance There are about 941 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 414 airplanes of U.S. registry, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The proposed fuel boost pump replacement would take about 3 work hours per boost pump (4 boost pumps per airplane) or up to 12 work hours per airplane, per replacement cycle. The parts cost for replacement fuel boost pumps would be offset by returning the existing fuel boost pumps to the manufacturer for rework. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators to replace the fuel boost pumps is up to $397,440, or up to $960 per airplane, per replacement cycle. If done, the proposed feed-through connector replacement would take about 3 work hours per connector (4 connectors per airplane) or up to 12 work hours per airplane, per replacement cycle. Required parts would cost $691 per connector (up to $2,764 per airplane). Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators to replace the feed-through connectors is up to $1,541,736, or up to $3,724 per airplane, per replacement cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** FAA-2007-28281; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-238-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of cracking in the epoxy potting compound on the internal feed-through connector of the fuel boost pump in the area of the soldered wire connector lugs. We are issuing this AD to prevent a hazardous electrical path from the dry side to the wet side of the fuel boost pump through a cracked feed-through connector, which could create an ignition source on the wet side of the fuel boost pump and lead to subsequent explosion of the fuel tank. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Compliance Times
(f)At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0095 or 767-28A0096; both dated September 15, 2005; as applicable.
(1)Within 96 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours, whichever comes first.
(2)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. Replacement of Fuel Boost Pump Feed-Through Connector
(g)At the compliance time specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD: Replace the feed-through connector of each fuel boost pump as described in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat this replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 40,000 flight hours or 96 months, whichever comes first.
(1)Replace the fuel boost pump with a new fuel boost pump.
(2)Replace the fuel boost pump with a modified and re-identified fuel boost pump having a new feed-through connector installed. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096 refer to Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin 5006003-28-A4, dated May 9, 2005, as a source of service information for replacing the feed-through connector and re-identifying the fuel boost pump. Parts Installation
(h)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a fuel boost pump on any airplane, unless that pump meets the requirements of paragraph
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-10105 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. RM2007-1; Order No. 15] 39 CFR Part 3001 Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Commission has received general comments on the development of regulations implementing new statutory provisions pertaining to market dominant and competitive postal products. It now seeks more specific comments on the same topic. The Commission anticipates using these comments as guidance for drafting proposed regulations. DATES: Initial comments due June 18, 2007; reply comments due July 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www. prc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History 72 FR 5230 (February 5, 2007). I. Introduction Thirty sets of initial comments were filed in response to Order No. 2, which afforded interested persons an opportunity to comment on how the Commission can best fulfill its responsibilities under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (December 20, 2006), regarding establishing rate regulation for market dominant products and competitive products. 1 Twenty-one sets of reply comments were also filed. The Commission appreciates those thoughtful and comprehensive comments and has found them very useful. For the most part, the comments are general in nature, taking a more global view of the type of regulations to be implemented, *e.g.,* endorsing a light-handed approach, or advocating that competitive products make the maximum possible contribution to institutional costs, 2 rather than suggesting specific proposals to implement the PAEA. 3 1 PRC Order No. 2, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulations Establishing a System of Ratemaking, Docket No. RM2007-1, January 30, 2007. 2 *See, e.g.* , Initial Comments of the United States Postal Service, April 6, 2007, at 4-5; Comments of Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, National Association of Presort Mailers and National Postal Policy Council on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, April 6, 2007, at 4; Initial Comments of Time Warner Inc. in Response to Commission Order No. 2, April 6, 2007, at 9; Comments of United Parcel Service in Response to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulations Establishing a System of Ratemaking, April 6, 2007, at 5. 3 Some commenters did suggest that provisions of the PAEA be defined in certain ways. *See, e.g.* , Reply Comments of the United States Postal Service, May 7, 2007, at 3-10, and Appendix C; Initial Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc. in Response to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulations Establishing a System of Ratemaking, April 6, 2007, at 3-4, 17-20, 35-36; and Comments of the Parcel Shippers Association, April 6, 2007, at 24-26. In considering the regulations to be issued pursuant to sections 3622 and 3633 of the Postal Reorganization Act, as amended by the PAEA, the Commission concludes that the record would be enhanced by affording interested persons an opportunity to comment more specifically on potential ways to implement the statutory language prior to issuing proposed regulations. Therefore, the Commission is issuing this second advance notice of proposed rulemaking inviting interested persons to comment on specific issues central to implementing the necessary regulations. Interested persons are invited to comment on all (or any) of the following issues. Parties are encouraged to explain the basis for their position. The explanation need not be lengthy but should include whatever support the commenter believes to be relevant. Furthermore, although section III, below, addresses competitive products, persons primarily interested in market dominant products may wish to comment on common issues, *e.g.,* section III, item 9, concerning the term “product.” Comments are due June 18, 2007. Reply comments are due July 3, 2007. Following this round of comments, the Commission intends to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth specific rules applicable to rate changes for market dominant and competitive products. Interested persons will have an opportunity to comment on those proposed rules. It is the Commission's current expectation that the final rules on these topics will be issued before the end of October, 2007. II. Regulations Concerning Market Dominant Products 1. In Appendix C of its reply comments, the Postal Service provides a series of examples to illustrate its proposal for calculations that would ensure compliance with the price cap defined in sections 3622(d)(1)(A) and (2)(A). In part C of the appendix, the Postal Service describes its proposed method of calculating the CPI cap limitation. The cap would be equal to the difference between the most recently available monthly CPI and the monthly CPI for the same month of the previous year, divided by the monthly CPI for the previous year. The same result is reached by dividing the most recently available monthly CPI by the monthly CPI for the same month of the previous year and then subtracting one from the quotient. This point-to-point approach may be contrasted with an alternative that would compare aggregated monthly CPI figures instead of those of a single month. For example, the most recently available monthly CPI could be averaged with the previous 11 monthly CPI values. This 12-month average could then be compared to the average for the previous 12 months in the same way that the single-month figures are in the Postal Service's proposal. Figures 1 and 2 show the cap as it would be calculated under both methods for each month in 2005 and 2006, respectively. EP25MY07.001 EP25MY07.002 As the graphs show, the results of the point-to-point method exhibit a greater variation based on the month that is selected. The parties are requested to comment on the merits of each method and may offer additional alternatives. Please discuss how each method conforms to the language in section 3622(d), as well as how each method comports with the objectives in section 3622(b) and the factors in section 3622(c). 2. Appendix C of the Postal Service reply comments provides a series of examples to illustrate its proposal for calculations that would ensure compliance with the price cap defined in sections 3622(d)(1)(A) and (2)(A). Part B of the appendix describes the Postal Service's proposed method of calculating the annual change in rates to which the CPI cap shall be applied. The discussion begins by proposing principles (“Standards 1 and 2”) that the measure of the change in rates should satisfy. It concludes that any fixed volume weighting system will satisfy those principles. After explaining the practical impediment to the use of the ideal weights, it describes the weaknesses of two potential methods of measuring the base rates. The Postal Service proposes to use the most recent 12 months of available data to establish the volume weights and to recalculate average revenue per piece by applying those weights to the current rates. The result would be considered the average base rate. The average new rate would then be calculated by applying the same weights to the new set of rates. The percentage difference between the average base (current) rate and the average new rate would be compared to the percentage change in CPI. Parties are requested to comment on the method of calculating the annual change in rates under section 3622(d). Please discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methods described by the Postal Service in Appendix C of its reply comments (and alternative methods, if desired) and how each method comports with the objectives in section 3622(b) and the factors in section 3622(c). Please include a discussion of how to treat an altered rate design, for example, one for which billing determinants do not exist, such as the new rates to be applied to Periodicals. 3. Section 3622(e) directs the Commission to “ensure that workshare discounts do not exceed the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the workshare activity,” except in certain specified situations. In the context of a Notice of Rate Adjustment for a class of mail— a. What information and/or data are needed to allow the Commission to evaluate whether new workshare discounts are consistent with this standard? b. What information and/or data are needed to allow the Commission to evaluate whether unchanged workshare discounts remain consistent with this standard? c. What information and/or data are needed to allow the Commission to evaluate whether changed workshare discounts remain consistent with this standard? III. Regulations Concerning Competitive Products 4. Subchapter II of title 39, 39 U.S.C. 3631-3634, sets forth the provisions applicable to competitive products, which initially are to consist of priority mail, expedited mail, bulk parcel post, bulk international mail, and mailgrams. § 3631(a). 4 A procedure must be established to allow for amending this list of competitive products. 4 Pursuant to section 3642, the Commission may change the list of competitive products under section 3631 and market dominant products under section 3621 by adding new products to or removing products from the lists, or transferring products between the lists. Regarding section 3631— a. What current mail matter is “priority mail”? b. What current mail matter is “expedited mail”? c. What current mail matter is “bulk parcel post”? d. What current mail matter is “bulk international mail”? e. What, if any, current mail matter is “mailgrams”? f. To what does “mail classification schedule,” as used in section 3631(c), refer? 5. Section 3632 authorizes the Governors to establish rates and classes of mail for competitive products in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 36 and regulations promulgated by the Commission under section 3633. The rates and classes shall be established in writing, accompanied by a statement of explanation and justification and the effective date of each rate or class. § 3632(b)(1). Regarding section 3632— a. What information is needed to support new rates of general applicability? b. What information is needed to support new rates not of general applicability? c. Is the information needed to support a rate decrease different from that needed to support a rate increase? Please elaborate. d. What information is needed to support new classes of general applicability? e. What information is needed to support new classes not of general applicability? f. What criteria should be used to determine whether a rate or class is of general applicability or is not of general applicability in the Nation as a whole? g. How should “any substantial region of the Nation” be defined? 6. Pursuant to section 3633(a), the Commission is required to promulgate regulations applicable to rates for competitive products to: “(1) prohibit the subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products;
(2)ensure that each competitive product covers its costs attributable; and
(3)ensure that all competitive products collectively cover what the Commission determines to be an appropriate share of the institutional costs of the Postal Service.” Regarding section 3633— a. What data should be filed periodically with the Commission to enable it to assess the Postal Service's compliance with subsection: i. (a)(1), ii. (a)(2), and iii. (a)(3)? b. How frequently, *e.g.* , quarterly, annually, should such data be filed with the Commission? c. Are existing data systems adequate to enable the Commission to assess the Postal Service's compliance with section 3633(a)? If not, what modifications would be necessary? d. What is the appropriate standard for determining whether competitive products are being subsidized by market dominant products? e. What standard should be applied to determine the appropriate share of institutional costs to be recovered collectively from competitive products? f. Over what period of time should the standard identified in
(e)be deemed valid? g. Should the standard identified in
(e)raise a rebuttable presumption of validity? h. If return on investment (or assets) is used, what capital structure (assumed or otherwise) should be used for the Postal Service? 7. Section 3634 provides for an annual, assumed Federal income tax on the competitive products income. The amount of the assumed tax is to be transferred from the Competitive Products Fund to the Postal Service Fund. 5 5 Pursuant to section 2011(h) the Secretary of the Treasury is charged with developing recommendations regarding, *inter alia* , rules for determining the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for any year. Following receipt of those recommendations, which are due not earlier than June 20, 2007 or later than December 19, 2007, the Commission will provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the recommendations. Regarding section 3634— a. Is the assumed Federal income tax amount appropriately classified as an attributable cost? b. On what basis should the assumed Federal income tax amount be reasonably assigned among competitive products? 8. Section 3633(a)(2) requires each competitive product to cover its “costs attributable,” which are defined as “the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to such product through reliably identified causal relationships.” § 3631(b). The Commission has historically used attributable costs to develop recommended rates under the Postal Reorganization Act. Enactment of the PAEA raises issues concerning the need, if any, to modify the Commission's historic approach as well as the classification of costs arising under the PAEA. Regarding the term “costs attributable”— a. Identify any costs currently classified as attributable that, in light of PAEA, should be classified as institutional. The rationale for the proposed change should be explained. b. Identify any costs currently classified as institutional that, in light of PAEA, should be classified as attributable. The rationale for the proposed change should be explained. c. How should Retiree Health Benefit costs be classified? 9. The PAEA establishes a rate floor for each competitive product, *i.e.* , each competitive product must cover its attributable costs. § 3633(a)(2). Product is defined as “a postal service with a distinct cost or market characteristic for which a rate or rates are, or may reasonably be, applied[.]” § 102(6). Regarding the term “product”— a. Is each International Customized Agreement a competitive product? b. Is each Negotiated Service Agreement a product? c. Is each special classification a product? d. Is each class not of general applicability a product? IV. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. Interested persons may submit comments on the questions contained herein on or before June 18, 2007. 2. Reply comments are due on or before July 3, 2007. 3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Advance Notice in the **Federal Register** . By the Commission. Issued May 17, 2007. Signed May 21, 2007. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-10095 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200714(b); FRL-8317-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of Florida; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Power Plants Subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the State of Florida, through a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)submittal addressing New Source Review Reform
(NSR)requirements, requested that EPA grant it full approval to implement the State's Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of Significant Deterioration program for electric power plants subject to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. EPA is proposing to approve this specific request under section 110 of the Act. EPA intends to take action on all other portions of Florida's February 3, 2006, NSR Reform SIP submittal in a future rulemaking. In the Final Rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action 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 rule, 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 on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: Fortin.Kelly@EPA.gov* . 3. *Fax:* 404-562-9066. 4. *Mail:* “EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130”, Air Permits 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:* Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits 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. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permits 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)562-9117. Ms. Fortin can also be reached via electronic mail at *fortin.kelly@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: May 16, 2007. Russell L. Wright, Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E7-10063 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859; FRL-8318-5] RIN 2060-AN85 Risk and Technology Review, Phase II, Group 2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the comment period for the advanced notice for proposed rulemaking for the Risk and Technology Review, Phase II, Group 2 published on March 29, 2007, is being extended until June 29, 2007, for all source categories except Petroleum Refineries. DATES: *Comments.* The comment period has been extended from May 29, 2007. Comments must now be received on or before June 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,* Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. • *Facsimile:*
(202)566-1741, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. • *Mail:* U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention E-Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. As described further in section VII of the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, specific data change suggestions need to be accompanied by supporting documentation that includes a description of any assumptions used and any technical information and/or data that you used. We strongly urge that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft(r) Access files, which are provided on the *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html* webpage. Data in the form of written descriptions or other electronic file formats will be difficult for EPA to translate into the necessary format in a timely manner. Additionally, placing the burden on EPA to interpret data submitted in other formats increases the possibility of misinterpretation or errors. 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 e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail 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 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 will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Hirtz, Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
(919)541-2618; fax number:
(919)541-0246; and e-mail address: *hirtz.paula@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Regulated Entities.* Entities potentially affected by this action include facilities containing any one or more of the 22 major source categories subject to the 12 national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) (or commonly referred to maximum achievable control technology
(MACT)standards) listed in Table 1. The Petroleum Refineries source category is affected by this action, but will not receive an extension of the comment period due to the court-ordered deadline of August 22, 2007, for proposal of the technology review. This action does not affect area sources, as these NESHAP do not apply to area sources. Industries regulated by these MACT are classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes shown in Table 1. In addition, a classification system of MACT codes has been developed and is used in the 2002 National Emissions Inventory to identify processes included in each MACT source category. The MACT codes for the 22 source categories addressed in this notice are also displayed in Table 1. Table 1.—MACT Standards, Source Categories, and Corresponding NAICS and MACT Codes Addressed by This ANPRM MACT standard/source category name NAICS code MACT code Mineral Wool Production 327993 0409 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 336411 0701 Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 4883 0603 Natural Gas Transmission and Storage 486210 0504 Oil and Natural Gas Production 211 0501 Petroleum Refineries 32411 0503 Pharmaceuticals Production 3254 1201 Group I Polymers and Resins: Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production 325212 1311 Hypalon TM Production 325212 1315 Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production 325212 1321 Polybutadiene Rubber Production 325212 1325 Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production 325212 1339 Group IV Polymers and Resins: Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1302 Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1317 Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production 325211 1318 Nitrile Resins Production 325211 1342 Polyethylene Terephthalate Production 325211 1328 Polystyrene Production 325211 1331 Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production 325211 1338 Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 331312 0201 Printing and Publishing Industry 32311 0714 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations 336611 0715 *Worldwide Web (WWW).* In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Assistant Administrator's signature, a copy of this notice will be posted on TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.* The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Additional information is available on the Risk and Technology Review Phase II webpage at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* This information includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and other data that will be used as model inputs. Comment Period We received 15 requests to extend the public comment period on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the Risk and Technology Review, Phase II, Group 2 (72 FR 14734, March 29, 2007). We are extending the comment period to June 29, 2007, for all source categories except Petroleum Refineries. EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to propose action on the technology review for this source category by August 22, 2007. All comments for Petroleum Refineries must be received by May 29, 2007. Public comments must be received on or before June 29, 2007 for all other source categories. How can I get copies of the proposed amendments and other related information? EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section. In addition, information may be obtained from the Web page for the proposed rulemaking at: *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.* Dated: May 18, 2007. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-10128 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary 45 CFR Part 5b [CMS-0029-P] RIN 0938-A069 Exemption of Certain Systems of Records Under the Privacy Act AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would exempt the four system of records from subsections (c)(3), (d)(1) through (d)(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and
(f)of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2): The Automated Survey Processing Environment (ASPEN) Complaint/Incidents Tracking System (“ACTS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0565; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information Tracking System (“HITS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0544; the Organ Procurement Organizations System (“OPOS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0575; and the Fraud Investigation Database (“FID”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0527. DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-0029-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile
(Fax)transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. *Electronically.* You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.* Click on the link “Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period.” (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.) 2. *By regular mail.* You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address Only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-0029-P, P.O. Box 8017, Baltimore, MD 21244-8017. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. *By express or overnight mail.* You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address Only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-0029-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. 4. *By hand or courier.* If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number
(410)786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. (Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Brewer,
(410)786-7235. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Submitting Comments:* We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-0029-P and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment. *Inspection of Public Comments:* All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.* Click on the link “Electronic Comments on CMS Regulations” on that Web site to view public comments. Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951. I. Background The four SORs that are the subject of this proposed rule are as follows: A. The Automated Survey Processing Environment Complaints/Incidents Tracking System (“ACTS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0565. In the May 23, 2006 **Federal Register** (71 FR 29643), we published a notice of a modified or altered SOR titled Automated Survey Processing Environment (ASPEN) Complaint/Incidents Tracking System (“ACTS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0565. ACTS is a Windows-based program whose primary purpose is to track and process complaints and incidents reported against health care facilities regulated by CMS and State agencies. These facilities include Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA)-certified laboratories, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), nursing facilities, hospitals, home health agencies, end stage renal disease
(ESRD)facilities, hospices, rural health clinics, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs), outpatient physical therapy services, community mental health centers, ambulatory surgical centers, suppliers of portable x-ray services, and intermediate care facilities for persons with mental retardation. ACTS is designed to manage all operations associated with complaint and incident tracking and processing, from initial intake and investigation through the final disposition. B. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information Tracking System (“HITS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0544. In the July 6, 2005 issue of the **Federal Register** (70 FR 38944), we published a notice of a new SOR titled Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information Tracking System (“HITS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0544. In general, HITS consists of an electronic repository of information, documents, and supplementary paper document files. HITS' purpose is to store the results of all of our investigations, to determine if there were violations as charged in the original complaint, to investigate complaints that appear to be in violation of the Transactions and Code Sets, Security, and Unique Identifier provisions of HIPAA, to refer violations to law enforcement entities as necessary, and to maintain and retrieve records of the results of the complaint investigations. Investigative files maintained in HITS are received either as electronic documents or as paper records that are compiled for law enforcement purposes. C. The Organ Procurement Organizations System (“OPOS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0575. In the May 22, 2006 issue of the **Federal Register** (71 FR 29336), we published a notice of a new SOR titled Organ Procurement Organizations System (“OPOS”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0575. OPOS is a Windows-based program whose purpose is to track and process complaints and incidents reported against Organ Procurement Organizations. Section 701 of the Organ Procurement Organization System Certification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-505) gave us the authority to collect and maintain individually identifiable information pertaining to complaint allegations filed by a complainant, beneficiary, or provider of services against Organ Procurement Organizations; this information includes information gathered during all aspects of an investigation, including initial complaints, findings, results, disposition, and relevant correspondence. D. The Fraud Investigation Database (“FID”), HHS/CMS, System No. 09-70-0527 In the October 28, 2002 **Federal Register** (70 FR 65795), we published a notice of a modified or altered system of records
(SOR)that changed the name of a SOR entitled “CMS Utilization Review Investigatory Files, System No. 09-70-0527” to be the “CMS Fraud Investigation Database (FID).” The FID system contains the name, work address, work phone number, social security number, Unique Provider Identification Number (UPIN), and other identifying demographics of individuals alleged to have violated provisions of the Social Security Act (“the Act”) related to Medicare, Medicaid, HMO/Managed Care, and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The FID system also contains the contact information and other identifying demographics of individuals alleged to have violated other criminal or civil statutes connected with the Act and the Act's programs. Here, individuals are persons alleged to have abused the Act's programs. (For example, an individual could be a person alleged to have rendered unnecessary services to Medicare beneficiaries or Medicaid recipients, over-used services, or engaged in improper billing.) They are persons whose activities have provided a substantial basis for criminal or civil prosecution, or who are identified as defendants in criminal prosecution cases. II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule We propose to exempt the ACTS, HITS, OPOS, and FIS systems of records from subsection (c)(3), (d)(1) through (d)(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and
(f)of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in a record is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The ACTS, HITS, OPOS, and FIS systems of records are exempted from the following subsections for the reasons set forth below: • Subsection (c)(3). CMS investigative files are records that we compile for law enforcement purposes. In the course of investigations, we often have a need to obtain confidential information involving individuals other than the individual who is the subject of the file. In these cases, it is necessary for us to preserve the confidentiality of the information to avoid unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and to assure recipients of Federal financial assistance that this information will be kept confidential. This assurance is often central to resolving disputes concerning access by CMS to the recipient's records, and is necessary to facilitate prompt and effective completion of investigations. Disclosure of confidential information to the subject individual could impede ongoing investigations, invade the personal privacy of individuals, reveal the identities of confidential sources, or otherwise impair our ability to conduct investigations. • Subsections (d)(1) through (d)(4). CMS investigative files are records that we compile for law enforcement purposes. In the course of investigations, we often have a need to obtain confidential information involving individuals other than the individual who is the subject of the file. In these cases, it is necessary for us to preserve the confidentiality of the information to avoid unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and to assure recipients of Federal financial assistance that this information will be kept confidential. This assurance is often central to resolving disputes concerning access by CMS to the recipient's records, and is necessary to facilitate prompt and effective completion of investigations. Unrestricted disclosure of confidential information in CMS files could impede ongoing investigations, invade the personal privacy of individuals, reveal the identities of confidential sources, or otherwise impair our ability to conduct investigations. • Subsection (e)(4)(G). CMS investigative files are records that we compile for law enforcement purposes. In the course of investigations, we often have a need to obtain confidential information involving individuals other than the individual who is the subject of the file. In these cases, it is necessary for us to preserve the confidentiality of the information to avoid unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and to assure recipients of Federal financial assistance that this information will be kept confidential. This assurance is often central to resolving disputes concerning access by CMS to the recipient's records, and is necessary to facilitate prompt and effective completion of investigations. Notification of existence of CMS investigative files could impede ongoing investigations, invade the personal privacy of individuals, reveal the identities of confidential sources, or otherwise impair our ability to conduct investigations. • From subsection (e)(4)(H). CMS investigative files are records that we compile for law enforcement purposes. In the course of investigations, we often have a need to obtain confidential information involving individuals other than the individual who is the subject of the file. In these cases, it is necessary for us to preserve the confidentiality of the information to avoid unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and to assure recipients of Federal financial assistance that this information will be kept confidential. This assurance is often central to resolving disputes concerning access by CMS to the recipient's records, and is necessary to facilitate prompt and effective completion of investigations. Access and correction by subject individuals to CMS files could impede ongoing investigations, invade the personal privacy of individuals, reveal the identities of confidential sources, or otherwise impair our ability to conduct investigations. • Subsection (f). CMS investigative files are records that we compile for law enforcement purposes. In the course of investigations, we often have a need to obtain confidential information involving individuals other than the individual who is the subject of the file. In these cases, it is necessary for us to preserve the confidentiality of the information to avoid unwarranted invasions of personal privacy and to assure recipients of Federal financial assistance that this information will be kept confidential. This assurance is often central to resolving disputes concerning access by CMS to the recipient's records, and is necessary to facilitate prompt and effective completion of investigations. Unrestricted disclosure of confidential information in CMS files to subject individuals could impede ongoing investigations, invade the personal privacy of individuals, reveal the identities of confidential sources, or otherwise impair our ability to conduct investigations. Accordingly, this proposed rule would amend 45 CFR 5b.11(b)(2)(ii) of the Privacy Act regulations by— • Adding a new paragraph
(H)that exempts investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from ACTS; • Adding a new paragraph
(I)that exempts investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from HITS; • Adding a new paragraph
(J)that exempts investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from OPOS; and • Adding a new paragraph
(K)that exempts investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from FID. We request public comment on these proposed exemptions. III. Collection of Information Requirements This proposed rule does not impose any information collection or recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IV. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on **Federal Register** documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. V. Regulatory Impact Statement We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects for 45 CFR Part 5b Privacy. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services would amend 45 CFR part 5b as set forth below: PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 5b continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 2. Section 5b.11 is revised by adding paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(H), (I), (J), and
(K)to read as follows: § 5b.11 Exempt Systems
(b)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * *
(H)Investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from the Automated Survey Processing Environment (ASPEN) Complaints/Incidents Tracking System (“ACTS”), HHS/CMS.
(I)Investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Information Tracking System (“HITS”), HHS/CMS.
(J)Investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from the Organ Procurement Organizations System (“OPOS”), HHS/CMS.
(K)Investigative materials compiled for law enforcement purposes from the CMS Fraud Investigation Database (“FID”), HHS/CMS. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. Dated: September 29, 2006. Mark B. McClellan, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: January 26, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on Tuesday, May 22, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-10143 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 72 101 Friday, May 25, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2007-0063] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Subtype H5N1 AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations to prevent the introduction of the H5N1 subtype of highly pathogenic avian influenza through imported birds, poultry, and unprocessed bird and poultry products. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2007-0063 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0063, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0063. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on an information collection associated with regulations for the importation of unprocessed bird and poultry products from regions that have reported the presence of the H5N1 subtype of highly pathogenic avian influenza or for the importation of U.S. origin pet birds and performing or theatrical birds and poultry returning to the United States, contact Dr. Peter Merrill, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-0649. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Subtype H5N1. *OMB Number:* 0579-0245. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals, animal products, and other articles into the United States to prevent the introduction of animal diseases and pests. The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, and 95 govern, among other things, the importation of certain birds, poultry, and unprocessed bird and poultry products and byproducts to prevent the introduction of the H5N1 subtype of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI H5N1). HPAI H5N1 is an extremely infectious and fatal form of the disease for poultry. HPAI can strike poultry quickly without any warning signs of infection and, once established, can spread rapidly from flock to flock. HPAI viruses can also be spread by manure, equipment, vehicles, egg flats, crates, and people whose clothing or shoes have come in contact with the virus. HPAI viruses can remain viable at moderate temperatures for long periods in the environment and can survive indefinitely in frozen material. One gram of contaminated manure can contain enough virus to infect 1 million poultry. The H5N1 subtype of HPAI has been of particular concern because it has crossed the species barrier and caused severe disease, with high mortality, in humans. APHIS' regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of unprocessed bird and poultry products and byproducts from regions that have reported the presence of the H5N1 subtype of HPAI, and contain permit and quarantine requirements for U.S. origin pet birds and performing or theatrical birds and poultry returning to the United States after being in such regions. The provisions necessitate the use of several information collection activities, including an Application to Import Controlled Materials or Transport Organisms and Vectors (VS Form 16-3), an Application for Import or In-Transit Permit (VS Form 17-129), a notarized declaration or affirmation, and a Pet Bird Owner Agreement (VS Form 17-8). We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response. *Respondents:* U.S. importers of unprocessed bird and poultry products from regions where HPAI subtype H5N1 has been reported, and owners of U.S. origin pet birds and U.S. origin performing or theatrical birds or poultry returning to the United States. *Estimated annual number of respondents :* 5,180. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 4.540540541. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 23,520. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 11,760 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10106 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152] Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment period for supplemental environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0152 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238;
(301)734-6103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 24, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 62240, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152) a notice of its intention to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement
(SEIS)for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003 (FEIS). The purpose of the SEIS is to reevaluate and refine the estimates of methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS. On March 9, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 10749) a notice of the availability of the SEIS. Comments on the SEIS were required to be received on or before April 23, 2007. We are reopening the comment period on the SEIS for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We will also consider all comments received between April 24, 2007 (the day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of this notice. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of May 2007. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E7-10107 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 30, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 15097-15098) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement Services *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Akron Canton Regional Airport (Break and Training Room Only), 5400 Lauby Road NW., North Canton, OH. *NPA:* The Workshops, Inc., Canton, OH. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administrations, Public Buildings Service, Region 5, Cleveland, OH. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital (Hines Campus), 5th Avenue & Roosevelt Road, Hines, IL. *NPA:* Jewish Vocational Service and Employment Center, Chicago, IL. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Veterans Affairs, Great Lakes Network-Contract Service Center, Milwaukee, WI. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Mauna Loa Observatory (Hilo Office), 1437 Kilauea Ave, Hilo, HI. *NPA:* The ARC of Hilo, Hilo, HI. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Commerce, NOAA-Mountain, Boulder Labs, Boulder, CO. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-10144 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Proposed Additions And Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed additions to and deletions from procurement list. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received On Or Before:* June 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *CMTEFedReg@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Product Hood, Anti-Flash, Firemen's. *NSN:* 4210-01-493-4694—DAF-S-1 (20% KEVLAR/80% FR Rayon)—2 ply. *NPA:* Dawn Enterprises, Inc., Blackfoot, ID. *Contracting Activity:* Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA. Services *Service Type/Location:* Custodial/Grounds Maintenance, Joseph P. Kinneary Federal Courthouse, 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, OH. *NPA:* Alpha Group of Delaware, Inc., Delaware, OH. *Contracting Activity:* General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Region 5, Columbus, OH. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Fort AP Hill, Camp Anderson, Bowling Green, VA. *NPA:* Rappahannock Goodwill Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA. *Contracting Activity:* Army Contracting Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 843 13th Court—Unit 7, Riviera Beach, FL. *NPA:* Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service-MRP-BS ASD, Minneapolis, MN. *Service Type/Location:* Custodial/Grounds Maintenance, Syracuse Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), 6001 E. Mallory Road, Building 710, Syracuse, NY. *NPA:* Oswego Industries, Inc., Fulton, NY. *Contracting Activity:* AFRC—Niagara, Niagara Falls, NY. *Service Type/Location:* Document Destruction, Internal Revenue Service, 550 W. Fort Street, Boise, ID. *NPA:* Western Idaho Training Company, Inc., Caldwell, ID. *Contracting Activity:* Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service—CA, San Francisco, CA. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Landscaping Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 430 West Health Sciences Drive, Davis, CA. *NPA:* PRIDE Industries, Inc., Roseville, CA. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service—Pacific West Area, Albany, CA. *Service Type/Location:* Postwide Administrative Support Services, Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, NC. *NPA:* Employment Source, Inc., Fayetteville, NC. *Contracting Activity:* Fort Bragg Directorate of Contracting, Fort Bragg, NC. *Service Type/Location:* Supply/Warehouse/HAZMAT Services, Meridian Naval Air Station, 224 Allen Rd, Meridian, MS. *NPA:* South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX. *Contracting Activity:* Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Jacksonville, FL. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products PCU, Level 7 Loft Jacket—Type 2 *NSN:* 8415-00-NSH-1647—Size LL. *NSN:* 8415-00-NSH-1649—Size XLL. *NSN:* 8415-00-NSH-1652—Size XXLL. *NSN:* 8415-00-NSH-1654—Size XXXLL. *NPA:* Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army RDECOM Acquisition Center, Natick, MA. Services *Service Type/Location:* Grounds Maintenance, Hill Air Force Base, Hill Air Force Base, UT. *NPA:* Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Center Davis County School District, Clearfield, UT. *Contracting Activity:* Hill Air Force Base, UT. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Navy Exchange Command Corporate Accounting (CAC), Norfolk, VA. *NPA:* Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA. *Contracting Activity:* Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM), Virginia Beach, VA. *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Navy Exchange Command Uniform Support Center, Bldg 1545, Chesapeake, VA. *NPA:* Portco, Inc., Portsmouth, VA *Contracting Activity:* Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM), Virginia Beach, VA. *Service Type/Location:* Laundry Service National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. *NPA:* Rappahannock Goodwill Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA. *Contracting Activity:* North Atlantic Contracting Office, Washington, DC. *Service Type/Location:* Microfilming, Department of Treasury, Financial Management Services, Hyattsville, MD. *NPA:* Didlake, Inc., Manassas, VA. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Treasury, DC. Kimberly M. Zeich, Director, Program Operations. [FR Doc. E7-10145 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Date and Time: Friday, June 1, 2007; 9 a.m. Place: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425. Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda. II. Approval of Minutes of May 11, Meeting. III. Announcements. IV. Staff Director's Report. V. State Advisory Committee Issues; • Virginia SAC. • Michigan SAC. VI. Future Agenda Items. VII. Adjourn. Briefing Agenda School Choice, the Blaine Amendments and Anti-Catholicism; • Introductory Remarks by Chairman. • Speakers' Presentation. • Questions by Commissioners and Staff Director. Contact Person for Further Information: Manuel Alba, Press and Communications
(202)376-8582. Dated: May 22, 2007. David Blackwood, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 07-2630 Filed 5-22-07; 4:02 pm]
Connectionstraces to 38
Traces to 38 documents
U.S. Code
31 references not yet in our index
  • 32 CFR 234
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 39 CFR 111
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 251 F.3d 1026
  • 135 F.3d 791
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 42 USC 7470-7479
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 42 USC 9601-9657
  • 3 CFR 1991
  • 3 CFR 1987
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 39 CFR 3001
  • Pub. L. 109-435
  • 120 Stat. 3198
  • 39 USC 3631-3634
  • 40 CFR 63
  • 45 CFR 5
  • Pub. L. 106-505
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 41 USC 46-48c
  • 41 CFR 51
  • 41 USC 47(a)(2)
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 2674
U.S.C.§ 551
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 301
U.S.C.§ 131
U.S.C.§ 674
U.S.C.§ 13
Fed. Reg.Rules and Regulations
U.S.C.§ 107
F. App'x251 F.3d 1026
F. App'x135 F.3d 791
Cite32 CFR 234
Cites 69 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.