54490 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Related Investigative/Corrective Actions 

(h) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of 

this AD: Before further flight, replace nose rib 

7 with a new, reinforced rib and do all 

related investigative actions in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–57–0242 or 

A300–57–6097, both dated December 18, 

2003, as applicable, except as provided by 

paragraph (i) of this AD. Then, within 5,000 

flight cycles after doing the replacement, do 

the inspection in paragraph (f) of this AD, 

and perform repetitive inspections or related 

investigative/corrective actions as required 

by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(i) If any cracking is found for which the 

service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus: 

Before further flight, repair per a method 

approved by either the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction 

Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile (or its delegated 

agent). 

No Reporting Required 

(j) Airbus Service Bulletins A300–57–0240 

and A300–57–6095, both Revision 01, both 

dated December 2, 2004, specify to submit 

certain information to the manufacturer, but 

this AD does not include that requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(l) French airworthiness directive F–2005–

022, dated February 2, 2005, also addresses 

the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18312 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 906 

[CO–031–FOR] 

Colorado Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Plan 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and 

extension of public comment period and 

opportunity for public hearing on 

proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of 

revisions pertaining to a previously 

proposed amendment to the Colorado 

abandoned mine land reclamation 

(AMLR) plan (hereinafter, the ‘‘Colorado 

plan’’) under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act). Colorado proposes 

revisions about: Project selection 

criteria; selection of project alternatives; 

requirements for authorization to 

proceed; evaluation of project benefits; 

incorporation of the ‘‘Common Rule’’ in 

the procedures for financial 

management and accounting; 

interaction with the Colorado State 

Forest Service; and minor editorial 

revisions. Colorado intends to revise its 

plan to meet the requirements of the 

corresponding Federal regulations, to 

provide additional safeguards, and to 

clarify ambiguities. 

DATES: Comments on this amendment 

must be received on or before 4 p.m., 

m.d.t., on October 17, 2005 to ensure 

our consideration. If requested, we will 

hold a public hearing on the 

amendment on October 11, 2005. We 

will accept requests to speak until 4 

p.m., m.d.t., on September 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘CO–031–FOR,’’ by any of 

the following methods: 

E-mail: rpair@osmre.gov. Include 

‘‘CO–031–FOR’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

Mail: James Fulton, Chief, Denver 

Field Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, P.O. Box 

No. 46667, Denver, CO 80201–6667. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: James Fulton, 

Chief, Denver Field Division, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 

3320, Denver, CO 80202–5733, 303–

844–1400 x1424. 

Fax: 303–844–1545. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and be 

identified by ‘‘CO–031–FOR’’. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: You may review the docket 

(administrative record) for this plan 

amendment at the addresses listed 

below during normal business hours, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

holidays. The docket will contain copies 

of the Colorado plan, this amendment, 

a listing of any scheduled public 

hearings, and all written comments 

received in response to this document. 

You may receive one free copy of the 

amendment by contacting Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement’s (OSM) Denver Field 

Division. In addition, you may review a 

copy of the amendment during regular 

business hours at the following 

locations: 

James Fulton, Chief, Denver Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 

Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO 

80202. 303–844–1400 x1424. 

Ms. Loretta Pineda, Program 

Supervisor, Colorado Inactive Mine 

Reclamation Program, Division of 

Minerals and Geology, Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources, 1313 

Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 

80203. Telephone: 303–866–3567. 

E-mail address: 

loretta.pineda@state.co.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Fulton, Telephone: 303–844–1400 

x1424, E-mail address: 

jfulton@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Colorado Plan 

II. Description of the Proposed Amendment 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

I. Background on the Colorado Plan 

The Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Program was established 

by Title IV of the Act, (30 U.S.C. 1201 

et seq.) in response to concerns over 

extensive environmental damage caused 

by past coal mining activities. The 

program is funded by a reclamation fee 

collected on each ton of coal that is 

produced. The money collected is used 

to finance the reclamation of abandoned 

coal mines and for other authorized 

activities. Section 405 of the Act allows 

States and Indian tribes to assume 

exclusive responsibility for reclamation 

activity within the State or on Indian 

lands if they develop and submit to the 

Secretary of the Interior for approval, a 

program (often referred to as a plan) for 

the reclamation of abandoned coal 

mines. On June 11, 1982, the Secretary 

of the Interior approved the Colorado 

plan. You can find general background 

information on the Colorado plan, 

including the Secretary’s findings and 

the disposition of comments, in the June 

11, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 

25332). You can also find later actions 

concerning Colorado’s plan and plan 

amendments at 30 CFR 906.25. 

II. Description of the Proposed 

Amendment 

By letter dated October 29, 1996, 

Colorado sent to us a proposed 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54491 

amendment to its plan (administrative 

record number CO–AML–24) under 

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). 

Colorado sent the amendment in 

response to a September 26, 1994, letter 

(administrative record number CO–

AML–19) that we sent to Colorado in 

accordance with 30 CFR 884.15(b), and 

at its own initiative. The full text of the 

Colorado plan amendment is available 

for you to read at the locations listed 

above under ADDRESSES above. 

We announced receipt of the 

proposed amendment in the November 

19, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 

58800), provided an opportunity for a 

public hearing or meeting on its 

substantive adequacy, and invited 

public comment on its adequacy 

(administrative record number CO–

AML–26). Because no one requested a 

public hearing or meeting, none was 

held. The public comment period ended 

on December 19, 1996. We received 

comments from one industry group, four 

Federal agencies and two citizen or 

academic groups. 

During our review of the amendment, 

we identified a concern relating to the 

provisions of Colorado’s plan provisions 

at Section V.B.2. concerning the 

determination of eligibility for proposed 

sites. We notified Colorado of our 

concern by letter dated June 7, 1999 

(administrative record number CO–

AML–35). Colorado responded by a 

memo dated June 15, 2005, by 

submitting a revised amendment 

(administrative record number CO–

AML–36). Colorado is also taking this 

opportunity to submit additional 

revisions at its own initiative. 

The provisions of the plan that 

Colorado now proposes to revise are: 

II.B, Project selection criteria; II.C., 

Selection of project alternatives; V.B., 

Requirements for authorization to 

proceed; V.B.5., Evaluation of project 

benefits; VII.A.1.and 2., incorporation of 

the ‘‘Common Rule’’ in the procedures 

for financial management and 

accounting; VIII., Interaction with the 

Colorado State Forest Service; and 

several editorial corrections. 

Specifically, Colorado proposes the 

following revisions. 

II.B., Project selection criteria. 

Colorado proposes 15 criteria to be used 

in selecting projects for submission to 

OSM in grant applications. These 

include: (1) Public safety hazards (coal 

hazards receive top priority; noncoal 

projects must represent ‘‘extreme 

hazards’’); (2) funding considerations 

(consideration of total funds from all 

sources and any constraints on the 

funds); (3) technology available to 

accomplish the required tasks; (4) 

adverse impacts (consideration of 

impacts on people and the environment 

during and after reclamation work, 

including existing impacts); (5) value in 

economy and efficiency of the proposed 

project; (6) mineral recoverability 

(consider loss of mineral recoverability 

and possible disruption of the 

reclamation effort by future mining); (7) 

post-reclamation management 

(compatibility with on-site and 

surrounding land uses and applicable 

land use controls); (8) minerals involved 

in the inactive mining (coal receives top 

priority; noncoal or hardrock problems 

are of lower priority and must be 

extreme hazards); (9) geographic 

distribution (the plan tries to maintain 

a presence in all areas of the State each 

year for hardrock projects; geography is 

not applicable for coal-related projects); 

(10) accessibility (preference given to 

sites that are accessible and show 

significant visitation); (11) staffing 

(number of projects is limited by staff 

available); (12) community/landowner 

support (special consideration given to 

sites and projects where reclamation has 

been requested by landowners or the 

local community); (13) project size 

(small projects encourage local 

contractor participation); (14) project 

review (representing the priorities of an 

advisory committee); and (15) formal 

public hearing (final approval of site 

selection is given by the Mined Land 

Reclamation Board). 

II.C., Selection of project alternatives. 

Colorado proposes that after a tentative 

project selection, a suitable reclamation 

design for each project be selected. 

General alternatives are: (1) Hazard 

abatement (eliminate the hazard without 

necessarily addressing future land use); 

(2) partial reclamation (corrective action 

on hazards, but also make immediate 

site compatible with adjacent land 

uses); and (3) full reclamation (not only 

correct hazardous conditions, but also 

reclaim other effects of past mining, 

possibly including restoration of 

degraded land or water resources). 

Colorado proposes that the objective is 

to do as complete a reclamation job as 

possible, including restoration and 

abatement or control of adverse effects 

of past mining; but in some cases, only 

hazard abatement or partial reclamation 

will be performed. 

V.B. Colorado proposes to change the 

title of this section from ‘‘Project 

Feasibility Studies’’ to ‘‘Authorization to 

Proceed Requirements.’’

V.B.5., Evaluation of project benefits. 

Colorado proposes to limit the 

requirement for a written finding of 

project benefits to those projects which 

would potentially produce a significant 

increase in market value. 

VII.A.1. (financial management). 

Colorado proposes to change the 

reference regarding Federal financial 

requirements to ‘‘OMB Circular A–102 

and DOI’s Grants Management Common 

Rule at 43 CFR 12’’. Colorado proposes 

that fiscal management will comply 

with the Common Rule. 

VII.A.2., Audits. Colorado proposes to 

change the reference regarding Federal 

audit requirements from ‘‘OMB Circular 

A–102’’ to ‘‘the Common Rule.’’

VIII.I., Colorado State Forest Service 

(CSFS). Colorado proposes to add a new 

section describing the role that the CSFS 

plays in the plan implementation, 

which describes the CSFS’s expertise in 

natural resource protection. 

We note that the document submitted 

to OSM (administrative record number 

CO–AML–36) is not limited to the 

proposed revisions described here. It is 

a full version of the Colorado plan 

document, and indicates all changes 

since the plan was originally approved 

by OSM (see Section I. Background on 

the Colorado Plan above). In this 

document, text highlighted in magenta 

indicates language that has been 

approved by OSM (in 1985). Text 

highlighted with yellow and blue is 

language that was proposed in 1996, 

and has already been opened to public 

comment (see Section II. Description of 

the Proposed Amendment above). The 

text that is new with this current 

submittal is highlighted in green. We 

noted a couple of new changes that are 

not highlighted in green, but they are 

minor editorial changes. In this 

proposed rule, we are specifically 

requesting comments on the new 

material highlighted in green, as 

described above. 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

Written Comments 

Send your written comments to us at 

the address given above. Your written 

comments should be specific, pertain 

only to the issues proposed in this 

rulemaking, and include explanations in 

support of your recommendations. We 

cannot ensure consideration of 

comments received at locations other 

than the Denver Field Division (see 

ADDRESSES above). 

Electronic Comments 

Please submit Internet comments as 

an ASCII or MS Word file, avoiding the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

SATS No. CO–031–FOR’’ and your 

name and return address in your 

Internet message. If you do not receive 

a confirmation that we have received 

your Internet message, contact the 

54492 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Denver Field Division at 303–844–1400 

x1446. 

Availability of Comments 

We will make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

normal business hours. We will not 

consider anonymous comments. If 

individual respondents request 

confidentiality, we will honor their 

request to the extent allowable by law. 

Individual respondents who wish to 

withhold their name or address from 

public review, except for the city or 

town, must state this prominently at the 

beginning of their comments. We will 

make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public review in their entirety. 

Public Hearing 

If you wish to speak at the public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 

p.m., m.d.t., on September 30, 2005. If 

you are disabled and need special 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, please contact the individual 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will arrange the location 

and time of the hearing with those 

persons requesting the hearing. If no one 

requests an opportunity to speak, we 

will not hold the hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at a public 

hearing provide us with a written copy 

of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been heard. If you are in the 

audience and have not been scheduled 

to speak and wish to do so, you will be 

allowed to speak after those who have 

been scheduled. We will end the 

hearing after everyone scheduled to 

speak, and others present in the 

audience who wish to speak, have been 

heard. 

Public Meeting 

If only one person requests an 

opportunity to speak, we may hold a 

public meeting rather than a public 

hearing. If you wish to meet with us to 

discuss the amendment, please request 

a meeting by contacting the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings will be 

open to the public and, if possible, we 

will post notices of meetings at the 

locations listed under ADDRESSES. We 

will make a written summary of each 

meeting a part of the administrative 

record. 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

This rule does not have takings 

implications. This determination is 

based on the analysis performed for the 

counterpart Federal regulation. 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department of the Interior has 

conducted the reviews required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and 

has determined that, to the extent 

allowable by law, this rule meets the 

applicable standards of subsections (a) 

and (b) of that section. However, these 

standards are not applicable to the 

actual language of Tribal or State AMLR 

plans and revisions thereof because 

each plan is drafted and promulgated by 

a specific Tribe or State, not by OSM. 

Decisions on proposed Tribal or State 

AMLR plans and revisions thereof 

submitted by a Tribe or State are based 

on a determination of whether the 

submittal meets the requirements of 

Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231–

1243) and the applicable Federal 

regulations at 30 CFR part 884. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This rule does not have federalism 

implications. SMCRA delineates the 

roles of the Federal and State 

Governments with regard to the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations. One of the 

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a 

nationwide program to protect society 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires 

that State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

The rule does not involve or affect 

Indian Tribes in any way. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

No environmental impact statement is 

required for this rule since agency 

decisions on proposed Tribal or State 

AMLR plans and revisions thereof are 

categorically excluded from compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) by the 

Manual of the Department of the Interior 

(516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 

8.4B(29)). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, 

which is the subject of this rule, is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

making the determination as to whether 

this rule would have a significant 

economic impact, the Department relied 

upon the data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54493 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2) of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

a. Does not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

c. Does not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

This determination is based upon the 

fact that the State submittal which is the 

subject of this rule is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of $100 million or more in any given 

year. This determination is based upon 

the fact that the State submittal, which 

is the subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation did not impose an unfunded 

mandate. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906 

Abandoned mine reclamation 

programs, Intergovernmental relations, 

Surface mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Regional Director, Western Regional 

Coordinating Center. 

[FR Doc. 05–18329 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 20 

International Mail: Proposed Changes 

in Postal Rates and Fees 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service, under its 

authority in Title 39 U.S.C. 407, is 

proposing changes to international mail 

postage rates and fees. As provided 

under the Postal Reorganization Act, the 

proposed changes will result in 

international postage rates that retain 

the overall value of service to 

customers, are fair and reasonable, and 

are not unduly or unreasonably 

discriminatory or preferential. 

The total international rate increase is 

5.9 percent. To the extent possible, the 

targeted increase is 5.4 percent acrossthe-board, consistent with our domestic 

rate filing with the Postal Rate 

Commission. We are proposing to 

implement this international pricing 

change at the same time as the domestic 

pricing change. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver comments to 

the Manager, Mailing Standards, Attn: 

Obataiye Akinwole, U.S. Postal Service, 

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., RM 3436, 

Washington, DC 20260–3436. You may 

also fax written comments to 202–268–

4955. You may inspect and photocopy 

all written comments between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 

USPS Headquarters Library, 11th Floor 

North, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obataiye B. Akinwole at 202–268–7262, 

or Thomas P. Philson at 202–268–7355. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal 

Service is proposing to change 

international postage rates and fees 

concurrent with the implementation of 

new domestic postage rates and fees. We 

also plan to realign certain Express Mail 

and Air Parcel Post rate groups based on 

operational changes that have taken 

place since the last rate change in 2001. 

This realignment will enhance service 

to some European and Asian countries. 

The total international rate increase is 

5.9 percent. To the extent possible, we 

targeted the same 5.4 percent across-theboard increase we requested in our 

domestic rate filing with the Postal Rate 

Commission. However, for some 

services and country groups, our 

proposed increase is more than 5.4 

percent. There are two reasons for this 

difference. First, unlike domestic rates, 

international rates have not changed 

since January 2001. During that time, 

costs have increased. To cover those 

increases, we need to raise some rates 

more than 5.4 percent. Second, rates 

were rounded, in some cases to the 

nearest $0.05. This rounding resulted in 

increases for services such as postcards 

and aerogrammes of more than 5.4 

percent. Postcards and aerogrammes are 

predominantly retail services, and we 

rounded those rates for customer 

convenience. 

There are five principal categories of 

international mail service, primarily 

differentiated by speed of service. They 

are Global Express Guaranteed (GXG), 

Global Express Mail (EMS), Global 

Priority Mail (GPM), Airmail, and 

Economy Mail. Following is a summary 

of our proposed changes. 

Global Express Guaranteed (GXGTM) 

Global Express Guaranteed (GXG) is 

an international expedited delivery 

service providing high-speed, 

guaranteed, and time-definite service 

from selected post offices to many 

international destinations. GXG is 

available for documents 

(correspondence) and merchandise. Our 

proposal would increase rates 

approximately 5.3 percent. 

Global Express MailTM (EMS) 

Global Express Mail (EMS) is an 

international expedited delivery service 

provided to approximately 180 

countries. Our proposal would increase 

rates 5.7 percent. For most country 

groups, the increase is an across-theboard 5.4 percent, rounded to the 

nearest $0.05. However, with enhanced 

service and operational changes, rates to 

certain Asian destinations increased 

more than 5.4 percent to cover costs. 

Global Priority Mail (GPM) 

Global Priority Mail (GPM) is an 

expedited airmail letter service for 

documents, printed matter, and 

uninsured merchandise up to 4 pounds 

to approximately 50 countries. Our 

proposal would increase rates 5.6 

percent. The proposed change 

represents an across-the-board 5.4 

percent increase, rounded to the nearest 

$0.25. Because of this rounding, the rate 

increase is more than 5.4 percent. 

Air Letters 

Air letters includes personal 

correspondence, statements of account, 

printed matter, and uninsured 

merchandise weighing up to 4 pounds. 

Our proposal would increase rates 5.2 

percent. 

Postcards and Postal Cards 

Postcards and postal cards are 

unsealed personal and business 

correspondence similar to First-Class 

Mail domestic postcards. Our proposal 

would increase rates 7.8 percent. The 

proposed change represents a 5.4 

percent increase rounded to the nearest 

$0.05. Because of this rounding, the rate 

increase is more than 5.4 percent. 

Postcards are predominantly a retail 

service, and we rounded rates for 

customer convenience. 

Aerogrammes 

Aerogrammes are designed for 

personal correspondence and consist of