Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65563

parties and a submission under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act is not 

required. An OMB Form 83–I is not 

required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

As a companion document to this 

NPRM, NPS has issued the Personal 

Watercraft Use Environmental 

Assessment for Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore and subsequent errata sheet. 

The environmental assessment was 

available for public review and 

comment for the period August 1 

through November 15, 2004. To request 

a copy of the document and errata sheet 

contact Superintendent, Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore, N8391 Sand Point 

Road, P.O. Box 40, Munising, MI 49862–

0040. A copy of the Environmental 

Assessment and errata sheet may also be 

found at www.nps.gov/piro. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government to Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 

DM 2, we have evaluated potential 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

tribes and have determined that there 

are no potential effects. 

Clarity of Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are easy 

to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this rule 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Are the requirements in the rule clearly 

stated? (2) Does the rule contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the rule (grouping and order 

of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 

read if it were divided into more (but 

shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’ appears 

in bold type and is preceded by the 

symbol ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; 

for example [§ 7.32 Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore] (5) Is the 

description of the rule in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the proposed rule? What else could we 

do to make the rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand to: Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may 

also e-mail the comments to this 

address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Drafting Information: The primary 

authors of this regulation are: Larry 

Hach, Chief Ranger, Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore; Sarah Bransom, 

Environmental Quality Division; and 

Kym Hall, Special Assistant. 

Public Participation 

Comments on the proposed rule 

should be mailed to N8391 Sand Point 

Road, P.O. Box 40, Munising, MI 49862–

0040. Comments may also be sent by email to PIRO@den.nps.gov. If you 

comment by e-mail, please include 

‘‘PWC rule’’ in the subject line and your 

name and return address in the body of 

your Internet message. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. If 

you wish us to withhold your name 

and/or address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials or 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7 

District of Columbia, National Parks, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

National Park Service proposes to 

amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

1. The authority for Part 7 continues 

to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 

462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under DC Code 

8–137(1981) and DC Code 40–721 (1981).

2. Amend § 7.32 by adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows:

§ 7.32 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.

* * * * *

(d) Personal Watercraft (PWC). (1) 

PWC are allowed on the waters within 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, 

from the western boundary of the 

lakeshore to the east end of Miners 

Beach. 

(2) PWC may only be launched from 

a designated launch site at Sand Point. 

(3) At Sand Point Beach and Miners 

Beach, PWC users may only beach their 

craft. 

(4) The Superintendent may 

temporarily limit, restrict, or terminate 

access to the areas designated for PWC 

use after taking into consideration 

public health and safety, natural and 

cultural resource protection, and other 

management activities and objectives.

Dated: November 4, 2004. 

Paul Hoffman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–25318 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3001 

[Docket No. RM2005–1; Order No. 1423] 

Periodic Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses a 

dispute that has arisen over the Postal 

Service’s compliance with certain 

periodic reporting rules. These rules are 

intended to facilitate participation in 

Commission proceedings by providing 

the public with data and information on 

cost methodologies and other matters. 

This notice describes the dispute and 

invites comments on this development, 

including suggestions on possible rule 

changes.

DATES: Initial Comments: December 6, 

2004; Reply Comments: January 6, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

(202) 789–6818.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

68 FR 2272, January 16, 2003. 

68 FR 65348, November 19, 2003. 

Summary 

The Postal Rate Commission amended 

its Rules Applicable to the Filing of 

Reports by the U.S. Postal Service in its 

Order No. 1386, issued November 3, 

2003. That order updated the rules to 

reflect new data systems and 

methodologies, and increased the 

amount of information the Postal 

Service was to submit to assist the 

Commission and foster effective public 

participation in Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) hearings pursuant 

to 39 U.S.C. 3624. 

The Postal Service opposed expansion 

of its obligations under 39 CFR 

65564 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

3001.102, Filing of Reports, in the 

rulemaking docket leading to the 

adoption of Order No. 1386. Although it 

initially complied with some of its new 

obligations, the Postal Service has now 

informed the Commission that after 

consideration at the ‘‘highest level’’ of 

postal management, it has determined 

that it will not comply with 

Commission rules that require the 

reporting of new methodologies and 

data used in the preparation of its 

annual Cost and Revenue Analysis 

(CRA) report. 

In support of its action, the Postal 

Service reiterated several legal 

contentions fully considered and 

rejected by the Commission in its 

rulemaking. However, the primary 

motivating factor leading to the Postal 

Service announcement that it would not 

comply with the rules seems to be the 

Commission practice of making 

materials filed in compliance with its 

rules available to the public. 

The Commission requests that 

interested persons provide comments on 

this controversy, including suggestions 

for adjustments to Commission rules 

designed to reconcile the conflicting 

interests outlined in this Notice. 

Comments should be provided by 

December 6, 2004. Reply comments may 

be submitted by January 6, 2005. 

Background 

Over the years, postal ratemaking has 

become increasingly complex. The 

ability to computerize information and 

apply econometrics to large data bases 

has led to more sophisticated analyses 

of postal costs, volumes, and revenues. 

The Commission, and to an even greater 

extent mailers and other interested 

participants in Postal Rate Commission 

proceedings, have had growing 

difficulty in reviewing multiple new 

complex analyses in the context of 

proceedings that must, by statute, be 

completed in 10 months. 39 U.S.C. 

3624(c)(1). 

The Postal Service supports its 

requests for rate increases with 

testimony from 40+ witnesses, a number 

of whom sponsor technical analyses that 

have been in preparation for many 

months. Participants must review this 

material, develop their criticisms, and 

present any suggested alternative 

analyses approximately half way 

through a case to allow other 

participants and the Commission to 

evaluate their views. The Commission is 

charged with reviewing every analysis 

presented, getting clarifications as 

needed, and preparing a technically 

sound, comprehensive decision. 

Commission conclusions must be 

confined to materials in the evidentiary 

record. Participants have complained 

that the process becomes ineffective and 

one-sided if only the Postal Service has 

time sufficient to analyze data and 

prepare persuasive evidence. 

Following the most recent rate case, 

the Postal Service and Postal Rate 

Commission jointly sponsored a 

Ratemaking Summit to obtain public 

input on ways to make the ratemaking 

process more streamlined and less 

burdensome for all involved. The 

Summit took place in May and June, 

2002, and involved written comments 

followed by two, separate full day 

discussion sessions. 

Attention was given both to how the 

Postal Service planned and 

implemented rate changes, and how to 

improve the current rate case process. 

The majority of comments addressing 

the rate case process focused on the 

difficulty of responding adequately to 

multiple new complex technical 

presentations within the 10-month 

timeframe. Participants emphasized 

they do not have the resources to 

address several major technical studies 

simultaneously. 

The most widely supported solution 

was to find a way to provide 

participants with more timely access to 

annual cost and volume data, as well as 

any changes in the methodologies the 

Postal Service uses to aggregate and 

distribute that data in preparing its 

annual reports. It has been the Postal 

Service’s consistent practice to withhold 

from the public both the basic cost and 

volume data underlying its aggregate 

results, and any changes to its analytic 

methodologies, until it submits an 

omnibus rate request. 

Recent Amendments to the Periodic 

Reporting Rules 

A short time after the Ratemaking 

Summit, the Commission issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, in 

which it sought comments on whether 

to update and expand its Rules 

Applicable to the Filing of Reports by 

the U.S. Postal Service. These rules had 

not been revised for over a decade and 

no longer fully reflected existing 

operating and data collection practices. 

The Commission is directed by 39 

U.S.C. 3603 to implement such rules as 

it finds necessary and proper to enable 

it to carry out its statutory functions. 

That section specifically provides such 

rules ‘‘shall not be subject to any change 

or supervision by the Postal Service.’’

All those who submitted either 

comments or reply comments, with the 

exception of the Postal Service, urged 

the Commission to amend its periodic 

reporting rules to facilitate analysis 

between rate cases. The Postal Service 

has opposed parts of these proposals, 

raising legal arguments (set forth below) 

and expressing concern that compliance 

would be burdensome, and that it might 

face time-consuming questions about 

new analytic methods underlying its 

published summary reports.

The Commission followed APA 

processes, resolving every issue raised. 

It narrowed its initial proposal 

somewhat in light of the Postal Service’s 

burden arguments, but it retained 

several proposed amendments to the 

periodic reporting rules providing 

access to new data collection systems 

and estimating methods. The 

Commission found that updating the 

periodic reporting rules would result in 

favor of key improvements: 

(1) Help the Commission and the 

public to evaluate the soundness of the 

cost, volume and revenue estimates on 

which existing rates were based; 

(2) Inform the Commission and the 

public about new data sets and 

estimation techniques incorporated by 

the Postal Service each year into the 

Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) report 

it currently provides; 

(3) Allow the public to participate 

more meaningfully in Commission 

cases; and 

(4) Enable the Commission to 

expedite the processing of rate, 

classification, and complaint cases. 

In November 2003 the Commission 

amended its periodic reporting rules. 

The Postal Service has complied with 

some parts of the new rule, but it now 

has refused to provide data and 

methodologies used to develop the 

majority of the cost attributions reported 

in its Cost and Revenue analysis. The 

Attachment to this Order lists the 

information the Postal Service has not 

provided. 

The Postal Service Position 

The Postal Service explained its views 

in detailed filings in Docket RM2003–3. 

All of these filings may be accessed on 

the Commission Web site, http://

www.prc.gov. The most recent Postal 

Service statement, in which it 

announced it would not provide 

required information, may also be found 

there on the ‘‘Daily Listing’’ for 

September 17, 2004. 

The Postal Service advances two main 

arguments in support of its position that 

the Commission is not authorized to 

require periodic reports of this nature. 

First, it contends that Commission 

authority is limited to acting in response 

to Postal Service requests for rate or 

classification decisions, and other 

strictly limited specific functions set 

forth in the Act. The Postal Service 

argues that the Commission does not 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65565

have broad investigative or oversight 

authority, and the Service has implied 

that the amended rules are an attempt 

by the Commission to expand its 

authority and oversee operations in a 

manner not contemplated by the statute. 

Second, the Postal Service contends 

that Congress does not want it to have 

to make information of this nature 

public ‘‘indiscriminately.’’ The Act 

includes a special test applicable to 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests. The Postal Service does not 

have to provide ‘‘information of a 

commercial nature’’ which ‘‘under good 

business practice would not be publicly 

disclosed’’ in response to a FOIA 

request. 39 U.S.C. 410(c)(2). The Postal 

Service correctly observes that private 

businesses in the United States seldom 

disclose detailed information about 

their operating costs. 

The Postal Service argues that because 

it is standard Commission practice to 

post public documents on its Web site, 

including data received as periodic 

reports, the Service should not provide 

such detailed information to the 

Commission. The Postal Service seems 

to concede that the Commission might 

have use for these materials, and for 

explanations of changes since the most 

recent rate case, but it contends that 

allowing internet access to this 

information would be contrary to 

Congress’ vision of the Postal Service 

following good business practices. 

The Current Commission Position 

The Commission has not found either 

Postal Service argument persuasive, as 

explained fully in Order No. 1386. The 

Commission has concluded that its 

responsibility under section 3603 to 

establish rules to carry out its functions 

under the Act does provide the 

authority to assure that sufficient 

information is available in a timely 

fashion to facilitate meaningful public 

participation and to enable the 

Commission to provide informed 

recommendations in response to Postal 

Service rate and classification requests. 

The Commission also has concluded 

that information required by its rules is 

not equivalent to a citizen’s FOIA 

request. While citizens can file a FOIA 

request seeking information on any 

topic without any showing of need, the 

Commission’s rules focus on 

information needed to carry out its 

statutory functions. The Act requires 

public participation in all Commission 

proceedings, and thus contemplates 

public access to relevant data. In past 

rate cases, the Postal Service has made 

all of the contested information 

available without suggesting that there 

was any need to restrict public access to 

it. 

The Commission always has 

recognized that when the Postal Service 

or any other participant provides items 

for use in a Commission proceeding that 

it shows to be trade secrets or other 

sensitive business information, and that 

disclosure of this information could 

result in commercial harm, such items 

should be made subject to appropriate 

protective conditions. Similarly, the 

Commission has been willing to 

accommodate in its periodic reporting 

rules, Postal Service requests that 

specific information be protected as 

commercially sensitive, after balancing 

the asserted risk of harm against the 

needs of the public to remain informed. 

See Docket No. RM89–3, Order No. 839, 

at 7–8 (deferring filing dates for billing 

determinants of competitive products). 

Comments 

The Postal Service has indicated its 

interest in further exploring the 

possibility of ways to refine procedures 

for controlling dissemination of 

information provided as periodic 

reports. This might be accomplished 

through additions to rule 102. Those 

responding to this notice are invited to 

advise on the most important policies 

and principles that should guide the 

Commission in evaluating potential 

action in regard to this situation. 

Commenters also may suggest 

procedures for obtaining a desired 

outcome or specific proposals for 

changes to Commission rules. 

Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on the Commission’s 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on or before December 6, 

2004. Any reply comments should be 

submitted by January 6, 2005. 

2. The Secretary shall cause this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Attachment 

Materials Required by Rule 102 That the 

Postal Service Has Not Provided 

1. The In-Office Cost System (IOCS) 

data for FY 2003 used to distribute 

attributable mail processing and inoffice carrier costs to classes of mail in 

the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) 

report. 

2. The City Carrier Cost System 

(CCCS) data for FY 2003 used to 

distribute attributable city carrier costs 

to classes of mail in the CRA. 

3. The Rural Carrier Cost System 

(RCCS) data for 2003 used to distribute 

attributable rural carrier costs to classes 

of mail in the CRA. 

4. The National Mail Count data for 

2003. These data are used to determine 

attributable rural carrier costs. 

5. MODS input data used to estimate 

mail processing cost variabilities by 

activity. 

6. SAS computer programs showing 

how FY 2003 attributable mail 

processing costs were estimated and 

distributed to mail classes in the CRA. 

7. Revenue, Pieces, and Weight 

reports by rate category for the first 

three quarters of FY 2004.

By the Commission.

Issued: November 8, 2004. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–25298 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 720

[OPPT–2003–0058; FRL–7342–2]

RIN 2070–AJ04

TSCA Inventory Nomenclature for 

Enzymes and Proteins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM).

SUMMARY: This ANPRM alerts interested 

parties that EPA is considering new 

procedures and regulations for naming 

enzymes and proteins when listing such 

substances on the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) Chemical 

Substances Inventory (Inventory). More 

specifically, this ANPRM outlines four 

identification elements that EPA 

currently believes are appropriate for 

use in developing unique TSCA 

Inventory nomenclature for 

proteinaceous enzymes. This ANPRM 

also solicits public comment on several 

specific questions relating to this 

initiative.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID number OPPT–

2003–0058, by one of the following 

methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments.

• Agency Website: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and