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

estimated. The Postal Service proposes 

to rely primarily on data from the 

manual density table to estimate the 

number of handlings of letter bundles. 

It comments that any additional changes 

to the cost methodology and structure of 

the presort letter cost models should be 

addressed in Docket No. RM2010–13. 

Id. at 2. 

Proposal Ten concerns Inbound 

International Mail. For FY 2010, it 

proposes to change the assignment of InOffice Cost System (IOCS)-based clerk 

and mail handler labor costs to country 

groups Canada, Industrialized 

Countries, and Developing Countries, so 

that normal downstream Cost and 

Revenue Analysis (CRA) and 

International Cost and Revenue 

Analysis (ICRA) processes can 

automatically distribute costs to those 

groups consistent with the way that 

clerk and mail handler costs are 

distributed to other products. (The 

standard distribution method reflects 

cost pools, container types, and shape 

distinctions—not just direct IOCS 

tallies). 

Proposal Eleven concerns 

International Money Transfers (IMTS). 

The Postal Service proposes to change 

the method for reporting IMTS 

separately for Inbound and Outbound 

products using information gathered 

from Point-of-Sale (POS), IOCS, and 

Chapter 9 in USPS–FY09–NPS. This, it 

says, will create two new line items in 

the ICRA report: IMTS-Outbound and 

IMTS-Inbound, but would not affect the 

sum currently reported in the IMTS line 

in that report. 

Proposal Twelve would affect the 

Media/Library Mail Processing Cost 

Model, the Bound Printed Matter 

Transportation Cost Model, and the 

Bulk Parcel Return Service Cost Model. 

In the 2009 ACD, the Commission 

expressed concern that use of the Intraand Inter-BMC volume split for singlepiece Parcel Post in the abovereferenced cost models is no longer 

appropriate because that distinction no 

longer exists for single-piece Parcel 

Post. The Postal Service proposes to use 

the percent of total single-piece Parcel 

Post volume comprised of volume for 

Zones 1, 2, and 3 as the new proxy in 

the above-referenced models. 

The Petition includes attachments 

that discuss the background, rationale, 

and impact of Proposals Nine through 

Twelve. The Petition, including the 

attachments, is available for review on 

the Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov. Comments on Proposals 

Nine through Twelve are due no later 

than January 28, 2011. 

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

Klingenberg is appointed as Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

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 Nine–Twelve), filed 

December 20, 2010, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–5 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested person may submit 

comments on Proposals Nine through 

Twelve no later than January 28, 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. 2010–33170 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0907; FRL–9247–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from crude 

oil production operations and refineries. 

We are proposing action on local rules 

that regulate these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0907, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4118, wells.joanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1