2676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1REVIEW OF MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION.—Five 

years after the date of enactment of this section, and 

every 5 years thereafter, the Postal Regulatory 

Commission shall conduct a review to determine 

whether the institutional costs contribution 

requirement under subsection (a)(3) should be 

retained in its current form, modified, or 

eliminated. In making its determination, the 

Commission shall consider all relevant 

circumstances, including the prevailing competitive 

conditions in the market, and the degree to which 

any costs are uniquely or disproportionately 

associated with any competitive products. 

2FY 2007 Annual Compliance Determination, 

March 28, 2008, at 113. 

an elevator control rod that does not have a 

control bore hole, following Glasfaser 

Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 

201–40, TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, 

TN 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 

604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 

(EASA translation approval dated September 

9, 2011), as applicable to glider model. 

(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install an elevator control rod with a 

control bore hole on the side. 

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. 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. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(h) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011–0213R1, dated 

November 8, 2011; and Glasfaser FlugzeugService GmbH Technical Note TN 201–40, 

TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304– 

12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, 

Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA 

translation approval dated September 9, 

2011), for related information. For service 

information related to this AD, contact 

Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service Hansjo ̈rg 

Streifeneder GmbH, D–72582 Grabenstetten, 

Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: 

+49(0)73821629; email: info@streifly.de; 

Internet: www.streifly.de/. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 

11, 2012. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–928 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3015 

[Docket No. RM2012–3; Order No. 1108] 

Competitive Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is initiating 

a review to determine whether 

competitive products provide the 

appropriate minimum contribution to 

the Postal Service’s institutional costs. 

This document invites comments to 

facilitate examination of this question. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 5, 

2012. Reply comments are due: April 2, 

2012. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Invitation To Comment 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3218 (2006), directs 

the Commission to promulgate 

regulations to ensure that competitive 

products, collectively, bear an 

‘‘appropriate share’’ of the Postal 

Service’s institutional costs. See 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a)(3). 

The initial Commission review of this 

issue determined that competitive 

products, collectively, annually should 

contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent of 

the institutional costs of the Postal 

Service. Order No. 43, October 29, 2007, 

paras. 3040–47. The PAEA further 

directs the Commission to revisit this 

question every 5 years. See 39 U.S.C. 

3633(b).1

Five years has passed since enactment 

of the PAEA. The Commission initiates 

Docket No. RM2012–3 to evaluate how 

to ensure that the appropriate minimum 

contribution to the Postal Service’s 

institutional costs is provided by 

competitive products. The Commission 

will decide whether its rule 3015.7(c), 

established in Order No. 43, which sets 

the 5.5 percent minimum contribution, 

should be retained in its current form, 

modified, or eliminated. 

When establishing the initial level of 

appropriate contribution from 

competitive products, the Commission 

tried to balance the risk of setting the 

contribution level too high with the risk 

of setting it too low. Given a very 

competitive marketplace where the 

Postal Service’s market share is 

relatively small, setting the contribution 

level too high could adversely affect the 

Postal Service’s ability to compete. On 

the other hand, establishing a markup 

that is too low could give the Postal 

Service an artificial competitive 

advantage. The Commission gave 

considerable weight to the historical 

contribution made by items categorized 

as competitive products by the PAEA. 

The Commission set the minimum 

contribution level at 5.5 percent of total 

institutional costs, in line with the 

competitive products’ estimated 

contribution to institutional costs of 5.4 

percent in FY 2005 and 5.7 percent in 

FY 2006. 

Since rule 3015.7(c) has been in place, 

the Postal Service’s competitive 

products collectively have covered more 

than 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s 

institutional costs. For FY 2007, the 

revenue from competitive products 

minus their attributable costs equaled 

5.66 percent of total institutional costs.2

For FY 2008, the contribution from 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2677 

3FY 2008 Annual Compliance Determination, 

March 30, 2009, at 87. 

4FY 2009 Annual Compliance Determination, 

March 29, 2010, at 117; FY 2010 Annual 

Compliance Determination, March 29, 2011, at 138. 

5See Docket No. ACR2011, FY 2011 Annual 

Compliance Report, December 29, 2011, at 64. 

Competitive products contribution, $2.317 billion, 

divided by total institutional costs, $29.554 billion. 

competitive products represented 5.54 

percent of total institutional costs.3 The 

contribution from competitive products 

to the recovery of the Postal Service’s 

institutional costs was 6.78 percent in 

FY 2009 and 7.12 percent in FY 2010.4

In FY 2009 and FY 2010, institutional 

costs were reduced compared with 

previous years, due in part to the 

congressionally mandated reductions of 

the required annual contribution to the 

Retirement Health Benefits Fund. The 

Postal Service also has increasingly 

exercised its flexibility to transfer mail 

volume from market dominant products 

to competitive products. See 39 U.S.C. 

3642. 

On December 29, 2011, the Postal 

Service filed its 2011 Annual 

Compliance Report with the 

Commission. That report indicates that 

in FY 2011 competitive products 

collectively contributed 7.84 percent of 

the Postal Service’s institutional costs.5

II. Invitation To Comment 

The Commission invites comments to 

facilitate its examination of the 

appropriateness of the current 

contribution level. To inform its 

deliberations, the Commission requests 

comments from interested members of 

the public on whether and how changes 

in competitive market conditions, the 

allocation of costs to competitive 

products, the number and volume of 

competitive products, or any other 

changes should impact the minimum 

appropriate share of institutional costs 

of the Postal Service that should be 

provided by competitive products. As 

required by the statute, the Commission 

in making its determination must 

consider all relevant circumstances, 

including the prevailing competitive 

conditions in the market, and the degree 

to which any costs are uniquely or 

disproportionately associated with any 

competitive products. Comments also 

are welcome on any issues relevant to 

the reasonableness of the current 5.5 

percent contribution requirement and 

retaining, modifying, or eliminating it. 

Comments are due March 5, 2012. 

Reply comments may be submitted on 

or before April 2, 2012. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, R. Kevin 

Harle is designated as the officer of the 

Commission to represent the interests of 

the general public (Public 

Representative). The Public 

Representative will direct the activities 

of Commission personnel assigned to 

him and, upon request, will provide 

their names for the record. Neither the 

Public Representative nor any of the 

assigned personnel will participate in or 

provide advice on any Commission 

decision in this proceeding. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2012–3, in compliance with 39 

U.S.C. 3633(b). 

2. The Commission designates R. 

Kevin Harle as the Public 

Representative representing the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

3. Comments are due March 5, 2012. 

4. Reply comments are due April 2, 

2012. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–851 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797; FRL–9619–5] 

RIN 2060–AQ–92 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that 

the period for providing public 

comments on the December 6, 2011, 

proposed rule titled, ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants’’ 

is being extended for 12 days. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

December 6, 2011, (76 FR 76260) is 

being extended for 12 days to February 

1, 2012, in order to provide the public 

additional time to submit comments and 

supporting information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written 

comments on the proposed rule may be 

submitted to EPA electronically, by 

mail, by facsimile or through hand 

delivery/courier. Please refer to the 

proposal for the addresses and detailed 

instructions. 

Docket. Publicly available documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection either electronically at 

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

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. 

World Wide Web. The EPA Web site 

for this rulemaking is at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum/ 

alumpg.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Putney, Metals and Inorganic 

Chemicals Group (D243–02), Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

2016; Fax number (919) 541–3207; 

Email address: putney.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

Due to requests received from 

industry to extend the public comment 

period, the EPA is extending the public 

comment period for an additional 12 

days. Therefore, the public comment 

period will end on February 1, 2012, 

rather than January 20, 2012. 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established the official 

public docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0797. The EPA has also developed a 

Web site for the proposed rulemaking at 

the addresses given above. 

Dated: January 12, 2012. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–962 Filed 1–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0476; FRL–9619–4] 

EPA Responses to State and Tribal 

2008 Ozone Designation 

Recommendations; Extension of 

Public Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

public comment period. 


EMCDONALD on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS