23820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 

1 The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

2 PAEA, Pub. L. 109–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). 

3 The Act defines the market-dominant category 

as ‘‘each product in the sale of which the Postal 

Service exercises sufficient market power that it can 

effectively set the price of such product 

substantially above costs, raise prices significantly, 

decrease quality, or decrease output, without risk of 

losing a significant level of business to other firms 

offering similar products.’’ 39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(1). 

The competitive products category is defined as 

consisting of ‘‘all other products.’’ Id. 

4 The Act lists first-class mail letters and sealed 

parcels; first-class mail cards; periodicals; standard 

mail; single piece parcel post; media mail; bound 

printed matter; library mail; special services; and 

single-piece international mail, as market-dominant 

products. 39 U.S.C. 3621(a)(1)–(10). The Act lists 

priority mail, expedited mail, bulk parcel post, bulk 

international mail, and mailgrams as competitive 

products. 39 U.S.C. 3631(a)(1)–(5). 

5 39 U.S.C. 3642(a). The PAEA, however, forbids 

the PRC from transferring a ‘‘product covered by the 

postal monopoly’’ to the competitive products list. 

39 U.S.C. 3642(b)(2). 

6 39 U.S.C. 3622(a). 

7 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). 

8 39 U.S.C. 3632. 

9 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). 

10 10 39 U.S.C. 2011. 

11 11 Id. 

12 39 U.S.C. 3634. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 26, 2007. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–8259 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

United States Postal Service Study 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice requesting information 

and comment. 

SUMMARY: On December 20, 2006, 

President Bush signed the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(‘‘PAEA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’) into law. 

Congress intended the PAEA to increase 

competition and efficiency in the 

provision of mail service. The Act 

requires the Federal Trade Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission or ‘‘FTC’’) to prepare 

and submit to the President, Congress, 

and the Postal Regulatory Commission 

(‘‘PRC’’) a comprehensive report by 

December 20, 2007, identifying Federal 

and State laws that apply differently to 

the United States Postal Service 

(‘‘USPS’’) with respect to the 

competitive category of mail and to 

private companies providing similar 

products. To help prepare this report, 

the Commission is requesting public 

comment on several issues. 

DATES: Public comments must be 

received on or before July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

‘‘USPS Study, Project No. P071200’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

A comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and the original 

and two copies should be delivered to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission/Office of the Secretary, 

Room 135–H (Annex F), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

Because paper mail in the Washington 

area and at the FTC is subject to delay, 

please consider submitting your 

comment in electronic form, as 

prescribed below. Comments containing 

any material for which confidential 

treatment is requested, however, must 

be filed in paper (rather than electronic) 

form, and the first page of the document 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).1

Comments filed in electronic form 

(except comments containing any 

confidential material) should be 

submitted to the FTC by clicking on the 

following Web link: https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/FTC/ 

USPSStudy and following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. 

You also may visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov to read this request 

for public comment and may file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The FTC will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments, whether filed in 

paper or electronic form, will be 

considered by the Commission and will 

be available to the public on the FTC 

Web site, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

ftc/privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be addressed to James Cooper, 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of 

Policy Planning, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

E-mail: jcooper1@ftc.gov; Telephone: 

202–326–3367. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act 

On December 20, 2006, President 

Bush signed into law the PAEA, which 

is intended to increase competition and 

efficiency in the provision of mail 

service.2 Under the PAEA, USPS 

products are divided into ‘‘marketdominant’’ and ‘‘competitive’’ 

categories.3 The Act lists marketdominant and competitive products,4

but allows the newly formed PRC to 

change these lists ‘‘by adding new 

products to the lists, removing products 

from the lists, or transferring products 

between the lists.’’ 5

With respect to market-dominant 

products, the Act requires the PRC to 

establish ‘‘a modern system for 

regulating rates and classes’’ 6 that 

satisfies a variety of objectives, 

including, inter alia, to maximize 

incentives to reduce costs and increase 

efficiency, to create predictability and 

stability of rates, and to maintain 

financial stability.7 Although the Act 

gives the USPS authority to set its own 

prices for competitive products (with a 

relatively brief public notification 

period),8 the PAEA requires the USPS to 

set these prices in accordance with 

regulations that the PRC will 

promulgate to: (1) Prohibit the 

subsidization of competitive products 

by market-dominant products; (2) 

ensure that each competitive product 

covers its attributable costs; and (3) 

ensure that all competitive products 

‘‘collectively cover what the [PRC] 

determines to be an appropriate share of 

the institutional costs of the Postal 

Service.’’ 9 The Act creates a separate 

revolving fund—the Postal Service 

Competitive Products Fund—for 

revenues from the sale of competitive 

products; 10 permits the USPS, subject 

to certain limitations, to borrow money 

and deposit the proceeds in the fund; 11

and subjects income from the sale of 

competitive products to the equivalent 

of federal corporate income taxes, by 

requiring the USPS to transfer that 

amount each year from the Competitive 

Products Fund to the Postal Service 

Fund.12

The Act further prohibits the USPS, 

and other Federal agencies acting in 

concert with it or on its behalf, from 

engaging in conduct—with respect to 

any product not covered by the statutory 

postal monopoly provision—that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 23821 

13 39 U.S.C. 409(e)(1)(A)–(B). 

14 39 U.S.C. 409(d)(2)(B). 

15 PAEA § 703(a). 

16 PAEA § 703(b). As noted above, 39 U.S.C. 3633 

requires the PRC to promulgate regulations to 

prohibit the subsidization of competitive products 

by market-dominant products, and to ensure that 

prices charged for competitive products cover 

attributable costs and an appropriate share of 

‘‘institutional costs.’’ 

17 PAEA § 703. 

18 39 U.S.C. 3631(a)(1)–(5). 

constitutes an unfair method of 

competition, in violation of Section 5 of 

the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 

U.S.C. 45(a), or otherwise violates the 

antitrust laws, as defined in the Clayton 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 12(a).13 In addition, the 

Act expressly prohibits the USPS from 

engaging in conduct that constitutes an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice, in 

violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.14

FTC Study 

The PAEA directs the Commission to 

prepare and submit to the President, 

Congress, and the PRC, a comprehensive 

report ‘‘identifying Federal and State 

laws that apply differently to the [USPS] 

with respect to the competitive category 

of mail * * * and to private companies 

providing similar products.’’ 15 The 

report must include such 

recommendations as the FTC ‘‘considers 

appropriate for bringing such legal 

differences to an end,’’ and ‘‘in the 

interim,’’ to account—under the PRC’s 

regulations that will prohibit 

subsidization of competitive products— 

‘‘for the net economic effects provided 

by those laws.’’ 16 In preparing this 

report, the Act requires the Commission 

to consult with the USPS, the PRC, 

other Federal agencies, mailers, private 

companies that provide delivery 

services, and the general public.17

Accordingly, to assist with preparing 

this report, the Commission seeks 

relevant information concerning the 

questions that follow. These questions 

are designed to assist members of the 

public in focusing their comments, but 

should not be construed as a limitation 

on the issues on which public comment 

may be submitted. To facilitate the 

consideration of comments, responses to 

these questions should cite the numbers 

and subsection of the questions being 

addressed. All comments submitted 

should include any relevant data, 

statistics, or any other evidence upon 

which the comments are based. 

With regard to the following questions 

‘‘competitive products’’ refers to (1) 

priority mail; (2) expedited mail; (3) 

bulk parcel post; (4) bulk international 

mail; and (5) mailgrams.18 ‘‘Private 

competitors’’ refers to companies that 

compete against the USPS in the 

provision of ‘‘competitive products.’’ 

Questions 

1. With respect to competitive 

products, please identify specific 

Federal laws, State laws, and local laws, 

regulations, ordinances, etc. 

(collectively, ‘‘legal requirements’’) with 

which private competitors must comply, 

but with which the USPS is not required 

to comply. Please identify the specific 

source of the USPS exemption from 

each such legal requirement. Please 

provide estimates of both actual 

expenses, and administrative costs 

associated with compliance, that such 

legal requirements impose on private 

competitors. 

2. Please discuss any benefits the 

USPS derives, in providing competitive 

services, from its legal monopolies over 

letter delivery and mailboxes. 

Specifically, discuss any economies of 

scope (i.e., cost advantages or other 

efficiencies that arise due to the 

provision of multiple products) that 

exist between the supply of marketdominant products and the supply of 

competitive products. In what ways, if 

any, do private suppliers of competitive 

products interconnect with the USPS 

system? Do any federal or state laws 

prevent greater interconnection with the 

USPS system? If so, please cite these 

laws and explain the ways in which 

they prevent greater interconnection. 

3. Please identify any additional legal 

requirements that confer benefits upon 

the USPS that are not available to its 

private competitors. 

4. With respect to competitive 

products, please identify specific legal 

requirements with which the USPS 

must comply, but with which private 

competitors are not required to comply, 

or any other legal constraints on the 

USPS’ operations that affect its costs. 

Please provide estimates of both actual 

expenses, and administrative costs 

associated with compliance, that such 

legal requirements and constraints 

impose on the USPS. Can any of these 

requirements or constraints be 

addressed apart from changes that 

would apply to the entire USPS? If so, 

please identify any requirements or 

constraints that might be removed only 

to the extent that they apply to 

competitive products. What laws would 

need to be changed to remove these 

requirements or constraints? 

5. Please provide an estimate of how 

the requirements identified in responses 

to Question 4 affect the costs that the 

USPS incurs to provide competitive 

products, and the prices that the USPS 

charges for competitive products. 

6. Please comment on the costs, 

benefits, and feasibility of requiring the 

USPS to account for the cost of 

complying with the legal requirements 

identified in responses to Question 1 in 

the cost of competitive products and in 

setting prices for competitive products. 

How should these costs be calculated 

and allocated between competitive and 

market-dominant products? Should the 

USPS be required actually to pay these 

costs or merely account for them when 

setting prices? If the USPS actually pays 

the costs associated with legal 

requirements, should it be required 

actually to comply with these legal 

requirements with respect to 

competitive products (e.g., pay local 

property taxes on buildings and vehicles 

to local governments)? Alternatively, 

should the USPS be required to pay the 

costs associated with these legal 

requirements to the U.S. Treasury or the 

U.S. Postal Fund? 

7. Please describe how the USPS not 

being required to pay a return on the 

capital that the federal government 

contributed toward its competitive 

operations affects the USPS’ costs and 

prices of competitive products. Should 

the USPS be required actually to pay a 

return on the capital that the federal 

government contributed toward its 

competitive operations or merely 

account for such a cost when setting 

prices for competitive products? How 

should this return be calculated? How 

would this cost be allocated between 

competitive and market-dominant 

products? Should the USPS be required 

to pay this return to the U.S. Treasury 

or to pay this return to the Postal 

Service Fund? 

8. Please describe how the USPS’ 

ability to borrow from the U.S. Treasury 

at preferential rates as compared with 

private sector companies affects the 

USPS’ costs and prices of competitive 

products. How should these borrowing 

costs be calculated and allocated 

between competitive and marketdominant products? Should the USPS 

be required to borrow at commercial 

rates or should there be another 

mechanism to equalize this cost 

differential? If so, how should it be 

calculated and should it be paid to the 

U.S. Treasury or the Postal Service 

Fund? 

9. Please discuss the costs, benefits, 

and feasibility of requiring the USPS 

explicitly to pay state and local taxes on 

its competitive operations. How should 

these costs be calculated and allocated 

between competitive and marketdominant products? For private sector 

competitors, please describe and 

provide the costs associated with filing 

and paying state and local income, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23822 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Notices 

sales, and property taxes and the 

magnitude of these taxes. What laws if 

any would need to be changed to 

require the USPS to explicitly pay such 

taxes? 

10. Please discuss the costs, benefits, 

and feasibility associated with requiring 

the USPS to establish a separate private 

entity to provide competitive products. 

What, if any, scope economies between 

its market-dominant products and its 

competitive products would be lost 

under this scenario? Please cite any 

relevant examples involving foreign 

countries in which a state-owned postal 

service established a separate private 

entity to provide competitive products. 

11. Please discuss any other possible 

ways of ending the differences in legal 

requirements between the USPS and its 

private competitors with respect to the 

competitive category of mail, including 

the costs, benefits, and feasibility 

associated with these other possible 

approaches. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–8251 Filed 4–30–07; 10:40 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[PBS–N01] 

Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Assessment for the 

Transformation of Facilities and 

Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear 

Production Activities Conducted at the 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s Kansas City Plant at 

Kansas City, Missouri 

AGENCY: General Services 

Administration and National Nuclear 

Security Administration, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA), as the lead 

agency, and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), as a 

cooperating agency, intend to prepare 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the following 

project: Transformation of Facilities and 

Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear 

Production Activities Conducted at the 

NNSA Kansas City Plant. 

The proposed action is for GSA to 

procure the construction of new 

facilities to house NNSA’s non-nuclear 

component procurement and 

manufacturing operations. The new 

facilities would be located 

approximately 8 miles south of the 

existing plant on a currently 

undeveloped site at the northwest 

corner of Missouri Highway 150 and 

Botts Road in Kansas City, Missouri. 

GSA would lease the facilities to NNSA, 

which would relocate its non-nuclear 

operations from the existing Kansas City 

Plant in the Bannister Federal Complex 

in Kansas City, Missouri, to the new 

facilities and conduct future operations 

in the new facilities. The relocation 

would involve moving approximately 

two-thirds of the existing capital and 

process equipment to the new facilities. 

Disposition activities of the existing 

NNSA facilities at the Kansas City Plant 

are not part of the current proposed 

action, and will be addressed in 

appropriate future environmental 

analyses. The Kansas City Plant is 

collocated on the Bannister Federal 

Complex with GSA and disposition 

activities will require coordination 

between both agencies. 

The proposed facilities would cover 

more than 1 million square feet and 

provide over 2,000 surface parking 

spaces. The current facilities are 

approximately 3 million square feet. 

The proposed facilities would meet 

current and future production 

requirements for NNSA in a modern, 

cost effective, and flexible manner 

through reductions in the current 

facility footprint while significantly 

reducing operational, maintenance, 

security, and energy costs. 

The EA also will evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with alternatives to the 

proposed action, including: 

<bullet≤ No Action, i.e., continuing 

NNSA’s non-nuclear operations in the 

existing Bannister Federal Complex 

facilities. 

<bullet≤ Renovate the existing GSA 

office and warehouse space at the 

Bannister Federal Complex, relocate 

NNSA’s non-nuclear operations to the 

renovated facilities, and conduct future 

operations in the renovated facilities. 

<bullet≤ Renovate the existing GSA 

office space, demolish existing GSA 

warehouse space, and construct and 

operate a new manufacturing facility on 

the GSA portion of the Bannister 

Federal Complex. 

<bullet≤ Demolish existing GSA office 

and warehouse space. Construct and 

operate new office and manufacturing 

facilities on GSA’s portion of the 

Bannister Federal Complex. 

Concurrent with the preparation of 

the Environmental Assessment, GSA 

and NNSA will determine the 

applicability of floodplain management 

and wetland protection requirements 

(10 CFR Part 1022) and will publish a 

notice of proposed floodplain and/or 

wetland action as appropriate. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

Scoping Meetings: The GSA and NNSA 

will hold a public scoping meeting for 

the Environmental Assessment on the 

Transformation of Facilities and 

Infrastructure for the Non-Nuclear 

Production Activities Conducted at the 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s Kansas City Plant. The 

purpose of this Notice of Intent is to 

invite public participation at the 

scoping meeting and to request public 

comments on the scope of the EA, 

including the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

The public scoping meeting is 

scheduled as follows: 

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 

6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. 

Plaza Auditorium 

Bannister Federal Complex 

1500 East Bannister Road 

Kansas City, MO 64131 

Enter the Bannister Federal Complex 

by using Entrance 2, also marked Lydia 

Entrance, off Bannister Road. Enter the 

building through GSA Lobby 16. Please 

bring government-issued photo 

identification for entry into the 

building. Oral and written comments 

will be accepted at the public scoping 

meeting. In addition, GSA and NNSA 

will consider all written comments 

postmarked by May 30, 2007. For 

further information or to submit written 

comments please contact: 

Carlos Salazar 

GSA Regional NEPA Coordinator 

1500 East Bannister Road, Room 2191 

(6PTA) 

Kansas City, MO 64131 

(816) 823–2305 

carlos.salazar@gsa.gov 

Background: NNSA intends to adopt 

this EA for use as a basis for decisions 

regarding the further transformation and 

downsizing of non-nuclear production 

activities performed at its Kansas City 

Plant. This EA is being prepared 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and 

regulations implementing NEPA issued 

by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), GSA 

(ADM 1095.1F), and to the extent not 

inconsistent with ADM 1095.1F, DOE 

(10 CFR Part 1021). 

NNSA’s non-nuclear operations 

include the procurement and 

manufacture of electrical, electronic, 

electromechanical, plastic, and 

mechanical components for the nuclear 

weapons program. Hazardous wastes are 

generated through general industrial 

processes and include acidic and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS