Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66315 

handling of mailpieces from broken or 

loose bundles results in delayed 

delivery and increases our processing 

costs. 

Although we are exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

of 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we 

invite public comments on the 

following proposed revisions to Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

Part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 3001–3011, 3201–3219, 3403–

3406, 3621, 3626, 5001. 

2. Amend the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) as explained below. 

300 Discount Flats 

* * * * * 

330 First-Class Mail 

* * * * * 

335 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

2.0 Bundles 

* * * * * 

2.4 Securing Bundles 

[Revise introductory text and items a, 

b, and c as follows; delete items d 

through f. Make these same changes to 

345.2.4 (for Standard Mail flats), 365.2.4 

(for Bound Printed Matter flats), 375.2.4 

(for Media Mail flats), 385.2.4 (for 

Library Mail flats), 435.2.5 (for FirstClass Mail parcels), 465.2.4 (for Bound 

Printed Matter parcels), 475.2.4 (for 

Media Mail parcels), 485.2.4 (for Library 

Mail parcels), 705.8.5.10 (for bundles on 

pallets), and 707.19.4 (for Periodicals).] 

Mailers must meet the following 

standards when preparing and securing 

bundles. 

a. Secure bundles with banding, 

shrinkwrap, or shrinkwrap 

supplemented with one or more bands. 

Banding includes plastic bands, rubber 

bands, twine, string, and similar 

material. 

b. Mailers using only banding to 

secure bundles must meet the following 

conditions. 

1. Use at least one band to encircle the 

length of the bundle and use at least one 

band to encircle the girth of the bundle. 

2. Use tension sufficient to tighten 

and depress the edges of the bundle so 

pieces will not slip out of the banding 

during transit and processing. 

3. Do not place any bands closer than 

1 inch from any bundle edge. 

4. When using twine or string to band 

bundles, secure the knot(s) so the 

banding does not come loose during 

transit and processing. 

5. Do not use wire or metal banding. 

6. Do not use any loose banding. 

c. Bundles must withstand normal 

transit and handling without breaking 

and without causing injury to postal 

employees or damage to Postal Service 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

340 Standard Mail 

* * * * * 

345 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

2.0 Bundles 

* * * * * 

2.5 Preparing Bundles in Sacks 

(Revise introductory text and item b 

as follows. Make these same changes in 

707.19.8 (for Periodicals).) 

Mailers must meet the following 

standards when preparing and securing 

bundles placed in sacks. 

* * * * * 

b. Secure bundles with at least two 

bands (plastic bands, rubber bands, 

twine, or string), one around the length 

and one around the girth. As options, 

secure bundles entirely with 

shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus 

one or two bands. 

* * * * * 

400 Discount Parcels 

* * * * * 

440 Standard Mail 

* * * * * 

445 Mail Preparation 

* * * * * 

2.0 Bundles 

* * * * * 

(Switch 2.5 and 2.4. Revise new 2.4 

using the text in 335.2.4 above; revise 

new 2.5 using the text in 345.2.5 above.) 

* * * * * 

700 Special Standards 

* * * * * 

705 Advanced Preparation and 

Special Postage Payment Systems 

* * * * * 

8.0 Preparation for Pallets 

* * * * * 

8.5 General Preparation 

* * * * * 

(Revise title of 8.5.10 as follows.) 

8.5.10 Securing Bundles on Pallets 

(Replace text in 8.5.10 with text from 

new 335.2.4.) 

(Delete 8.5.11; renumber 8.5.12 and 

8.5.13 as new 8.5.11 and 8.5.12.) 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR 111.3 if the 

proposal is adopted. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 05–21777 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R08–OAR–2005–UT–0006; FRL–7992–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Provo Attainment Demonstration 

of the Carbon Monoxide Standard, 

Redesignation to Attainment, 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes, and Approval of 

Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of Utah. 

On April 1, 2004, the Governor of Utah 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

and plan for the Provo metropolitan area 

(hereafter, Provo area) for the carbon 

monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) to replace 

the demonstration and plan that were 

submitted by Governor Leavitt on July 

11, 1994. The Governor’s submittal also 

contained a request to redesignate the 

Provo area to attainment for the CO 

NAAQS and a maintenance plan which 

includes transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) 

for 2014 and 2015. The Governor also 

submitted revisions to: Utah’s Rule 

R307–110–12, ‘‘Section IX, Control 

Measures for Area and Point Sources, 

Part C, Carbon Monoxide,’’ which 

incorporates the attainment 

66316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

demonstration, plan, and maintenance 

plan; Utah’s Rule R307–110–31, 

‘‘Section X, Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program, Part A,’’ which 

incorporates general requirements and 

applicability for motor vehicle 

emissions inspections; and Utah’s Rule 

R307–110–34, ‘‘Section X, Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program, 

Part D, Utah County,’’ which 

incorporates a revised vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program for 

Utah County. The Governor’s April 1, 

2004 submittal also stated that the prior 

July 11, 1994 submittal of Utah’s Rule 

R307–1–4.12, ‘‘Emissions Standards for 

Residential Solid Fuel Burning Devices 

and Fireplaces’’ to restrict woodburning 

in Utah County, remains part of her 

April 1, 2004 submittal and requested 

that Utah’s Rule R307–301, 

‘‘Oxygenated Gasoline Program,’’ be 

eliminated from the Federally-approved 

SIP. We note that on September 20, 

1999, the Governor submitted Utah 

Rules R307–302–3 and –4, which 

together comprise a re-numbered and retitled version of R307–1–4.12. The text 

of Rules R307–302–3 and –4 is identical 

to the text of Rule R307–1–4.12 that the 

Governor submitted on July 11, 1994. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Provo area’s attainment demonstration 

and plan, the request for redesignation 

to attainment for the Provo area, the 

maintenance plan, the transportation 

conformity MVEBs for 2014 and 2015, 

the revisions to Rule R307–110–12, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–31, the 

revisions to Rule R307–110–34, Rules 

R307–302–3 and –4, and the request to 

remove Rule R307–301 from the 

Federally-approved SIP. EPA is also 

identifying the transportation 

conformity MVEB for the year 2000, 

which is derived from the attainment 

year emission inventory in the 

attainment plan. This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revisions as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–2005–UT–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6436, and 

e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

the Federal Register. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Robert E. Roberts, 

Regional Administrator, Region VIII. 

[FR Doc. 05–21836 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R03–OAR–2005–VA–0007; FRL–7993–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Redesignation of the City of 

Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, 

and Stafford County Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Area’s Maintenance 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a redesignation request and a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. The Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) is 

requesting that the City of 

Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, 

and Stafford County (the Fredericksburg 

area) be redesignated as attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). In 

conjunction with its redesignation 

request, the Commonwealth submitted a 

State Implementation Plan revision 

consisting of a maintenance plan for the 

Fredericksburg area that provides for 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Frdericksburg 

area has attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. This proposed determination 

is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2002–2004 that 

demonstrate the 8-hour NAAQS has 

been attained in the area. EPA’s 

proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation request is based on its 

determination that the Fredericksburg 

area has met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment specified in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is 

providing information on the status of 

its adequacy determination for the 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) that are identified in the 8- 

hour maintenance plan for the 

Fredericksburg area for purposes of 

transportation conformity, and is also 

proposing to approve those MVEBs. 

EPA is proposing approval of the