296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

record of water transfers and otherwise 

ensure that water resources are not 

adversely affected. A streamlined 

approval process is provided that 

encourages the use of existing 

Commission-approved water sources to 

minimize the need to construct and 

operate new water sources. This Article 

permits water sources located within 

the physical boundaries of an approved 

Natural Gas Development Plan 

(‘‘NGDP’’) to be approved for uses within 

the NGDP. This Article also permits 

flowback and production waters, treated 

wastewater and mine drainage waters to 

be reused for natural gas development 

under specified conditions. 

Natural Gas Development Plan 

(‘‘NGDP’’) and Well Pad Siting 

Requirements: The severity of the risks 

to water resources from well pad 

construction and operation depends in 

large part on where the well pads are 

placed. Article 7 seeks to minimize 

impacts to water resources from natural 

gas development by establishing NGDP 

and well pad siting and planning 

requirements, including: 

• Mandatory preparation of NGDP by 

sponsors of natural gas well pad projects 

who have total lease holdings in the 

Delaware River Basin of over 3,200 acres 

or intend to construct more than five 

natural gas well pads designed for any 

type of natural gas well. 

• Identification, through the NGDP, of 

the project sponsor’s foreseeable natural 

gas development in a defined 

geographic area. The NGDP requirement 

is designed to foster protection of water 

resources through broad scale lease area 

planning rather than limited site-by-site 

decision making, thereby encouraging 

development only in areas most suitable 

for it and minimizing impact to 

sensitive water resource features. These 

plans identify geographic and 

hydrological constraints to natural gas 

development and identify measures to 

minimize those impacts. 

• Restrictions regarding siting in 

flood hazard areas, on steep slopes, and 

areas that serve as critical habitat for 

federal or state designated threatened 

and endangered (T&E) species. 

• Minimum setbacks from water 

bodies, wetlands, surface water supply 

intakes and water supply reservoirs at 

distances specified in the regulations, 

and from occupied homes, public 

buildings, public roads, public water 

supply wells, and domestic water 

supply wells as provided by regulations 

of the state in which the well pad is 

located. 

• A requirement for pre- and postproject monitoring of surface and 

groundwater near well pads involving 

high volume hydraulically fractured 

wells, including a characterization of 

the hydrology, water chemistry and 

biological resources of surface waters 

and the water chemistry of ground 

waters. 

• Requiring the monitoring, tracking, 

and reporting of water usage and 

wastewater treatment and disposal. All 

wastewaters must be transported to an 

approved treatment and disposal 

facilities. 

Well Construction and Operation 

Procedures: The Commission 

principally relies on the states’ 

implementation of state laws, 

regulations and programs concerning 

construction and operation of natural 

gas wells, well pads, and appurtenant 

structures to satisfy the requirements of 

the Compact and the Commission’s 

Comprehensive Plan. In this Article, the 

Commission is separately requiring that 

all non-domestic wastewater be 

transferred to appropriate tanks for 

temporary storage on the well pad site 

or to a centralized wastewater storage 

facility and that fluids and drill cuttings 

from horizontal wellbores in the target 

formation be beneficially reused or 

disposed of at an appropriate waste 

facility. 

Wastewater Generated from Natural 

Gas Activities: Wastewater produced at 

natural gas well sites contains salts and 

other chemicals that present water 

treatment challenges. This Article 

provides that any wastewater treatment 

facility within the Basin may accept 

non-domestic wastewater from a natural 

gas development project only if the 

facility first obtains approval from the 

Commission in the form of a docket or 

modification of an existing docket. 

To obtain authorization, a project 

sponsor must submit a treatability study 

to demonstrate that acceptance of the 

non-domestic wastewater will not 

interfere with the facility’s operations, 

and provide information to show that 

the facility’s discharge will neither (a) 

cause primary and secondary Safe 

Drinking Water Act standards to be 

exceeded where surface water may be 

used as a public water supply, nor (b) 

violate zone-specific stream quality 

objectives and effluent limitations. This 

Article 7 includes a comprehensive 

tracking system designed to promote the 

proper disposal of wastewater from 

natural gas development projects. 

Approval by Rule (‘‘ABR’’) Procedures: 

Existing procedures for obtaining a 

Commission decision on a project 

application generally take 6–9 months. 

This Article 7 provides for a streamlined 

process for natural gas development 

projects that demonstrate that they 

satisfy certain criteria. It provides 

Commission approval for these projects 

under an ‘‘approval by rule’’ process 

involving public notice, application to 

and approval by the Executive Director 

in a process that may take less than 30 

days Eligible projects include (a) Bulk 

water sales for uses related to natural 

gas by holders of valid Commission 

approvals that can provide water within 

their current allocations; (b) well pad 

projects that conform to a Commissionapproved Natural Gas Development 

Plan; (c) well pad projects that conform 

to specified restrictions and setback 

requirements; and (d) water supply 

projects involving the reuse of recovered 

flowback and production fluids as 

make-up water for hydraulically 

fracturing natural gas wells. In addition, 

projects that do not involve fracturing or 

that consist of well pads constructed 

exclusively for the development and 

operation of exploratory natural gas 

wells and that are expected to use no 

more than 80,000 gallons or equivalent 

of hydraulic fracturing fluids (‘‘low 

volume hydraulically fractured wells’’) 

are eligible for an ABR if they comply 

with applicable state programs and 

Commission setbacks and requirements. 

Approval by rule is not available for 

projects located in National Park 

Management Areas or in the watersheds 

of the New York City Reservoirs. 

Financial Assurance Requirements: 

Financial assurance for the plugging, 

abandonment and restoration of natural 

gas wells and the remediation of any 

pollution from natural gas development 

activities is required in the amount of 

$125,000 per natural gas well. After well 

installation and hydraulic fracturing are 

complete, the Executive Director may 

approve a reduction in the amount of 

the financial assurance for individual 

wells if there is no evidence of harm to 

the water resources of the Basin and the 

project sponsor obtains a separate 

‘‘excess’’ insurance policy or other 

financial assurance instrument. 

Dated: December 23, 2010. 

John F. Calkin, 

Attorney, Delaware River Basin Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32981 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2011–6; Order No. 626] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

availability of rulemaking petition. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 297 

1 Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytic Principles (Proposals 

Thirteen–Fourteen), December 22, 2010 (Petition). 

2 Proposal Thirteen is described in an attachment 

to the Petition (Proposal Thirteen). 

3 Proposal Thirteen proposes to populate the 

Parcel Select/Parcel Return model with much of the 

data that was collected to develop the Standard 

Mail/non-flat machinable (NFM) mail processing 

cost model. It also proposes to use Parcel Select 

arrival profile data that were collected during FY 

2009. Id. at 2. 

4 Proposal Fourteen is described in an attachment 

to the Petition (Proposal Fourteen). 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytic Principles (Proposals 

Nine–Twelve), December 20, 2010 (Petition). 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

establishing a docket to consider a 

proposed change in certain analytical 

methods used in periodic reporting. The 

proposed change has two parts. One 

part would update the mail processing 

portion of the Parcel Select/Parcel 

Return Service cost models. The other 

part would modify the Parcel Select/ 

Parcel Return Service transportation 

cost model. This action responds to a 

Postal Service rulemaking petition. 

Establishing this docket will allow the 

Commission to consider the Postal 

Service’s proposal and comments from 

the public. 

DATES: Comments are due: February 3, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

telephone for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202– 

789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 22, 2010, the Postal Service 

filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 

3050.11 asking the Commission to 

initiate an informal rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes in the 

analytical methods approved for use in 

periodic reporting.1 The Petition 

submits two distinct sets of proposals 

for approval. It proposes to use both sets 

in the Postal Service’s FY 2010 Annual 

Compliance Report. 

Proposal Thirteen is a set of proposals 

to update the mail processing portion of 

the Parcel Select/Parcel Return Service 

cost models.2 Petition at 1. The Postal 

Service states that much of the input 

data and cost methodology that it 

proposes to use in the new Parcel 

Select/Parcel Return Service cost model 

are the same as that relied upon in its 

Standard Mail parcel/non-flat 

machinable (NFM) processing cost 

model that was filed as Proposal Seven 

on September 8, 2010. Proposal 

Thirteen at 1. These new data will 

change the productivity figures and 

arrival/dispatch profiles used in the 

model.3 More detailed descriptions of 

proposed changes to the Parcel Select/ 

Parcel Return Service mail processing 

cost model are provided under seal as 

USPS–RM2011–6/NP1. The Postal 

Service says that the impact of Proposal 

Thirteen would be to decrease the mail 

processing unit cost estimates for price 

categories that require more processing 

steps, and increase the cost estimates for 

the DDU and RDU categories. Id. at 3. 

Proposal Fourteen is a set of proposals 

to modify the Parcel Select/Parcel 

Return Service transportation cost 

model.4 Id. at 1. It proposes to modify 

that model to (1) present transportation 

cost estimates only for the current price 

categories; (2) use PostalOne! data to 

estimate the cost of the transportation 

legs for non-dropshipped price 

categories; (3) incorporate the official 

revenue, pieces, and weight volumes 

into the model; (4) use the method 

relied upon to distribute Parcel Select 

transportation costs to distribute Parcel 

Return Service transportation costs; and 

(5) use a new method to estimate the 

return network distribution center cubic 

foot miles by zone. Id. at 1–2. The Postal 

Service states that it cannot estimate the 

impact of Proposal Fourteen since it 

would use data that was not available in 

2009. Id. at 2. 

The Petition, including the 

attachments, is available for review on 

the Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. 

Klingenberg is designated as Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

Comments are due no later than 

February 3, 2011. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytic Principles 

(Proposals Thirteen–Fourteen), filed 

December 22, 2010, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–6 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested persons may submit 

comments on Proposals Thirteen and 

Fourteen no later than February 3, 2011. 

4. The Commission will determine the 

need for reply comments after review of 

the initial comments. 

5. John P. Klingenberg is appointed to 

serve as the Public Representative to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33173 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2011–5; Order No. 625] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

availability of rulemaking petition. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

establishing a docket to consider a 

proposed change in certain analytical 

methods used in periodic reporting. 

This action responds to a Postal Service 

rulemaking petition. Establishing this 

docket will allow the Commission to 

consider the Postal Service’s proposal 

and comments from the public. 

DATES: Comments are due: January 28, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

telephone for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202– 

789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 75 FR 58449 (Sept. 24, 2010). 

On December 20, 2010, the Postal 

Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 

CFR 3050.11 asking the Commission to 

initiate an informal rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes in the 

analytical methods approved for use in 

periodic reporting.1 Four separate 

proposals, labeled Proposals Nine 

through Twelve, are included in the 

Petition. 

Proposal Nine proposes to update the 

input data to the mail processing cost 

model for First-Class Mail and Standard 

Mail presort letters in several respects, 

and to change the method by which the 

cost of sorting bundles of letters is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1