55464 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Further Proposed Methodology Changes for the FY 

2008 ACR (Proposals Ten-Eleven), September 12, 

2008 (Petition). 

a paper filing. Commenters that are not 

able to file comments electronically 

must send an original and 14 copies of 

their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. For paper 

filings, the original and 14 copies of 

such comments should be submitted to 

the Secretary of the Commission, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

22. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely, as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

VIII. Document Availability 

23. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through 

FERC’s Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) 

and in FERC’s Public Reference Room 

during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. 

to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First 

Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

24. From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available in 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available in eLibrary both in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number, excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

25. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

the Commission’s normal business 

hours. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support by e-mail at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or by 

telephone at 202–502–6652 (toll-free at 

(866) 208–3676) or for TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284 

Continental shelf, Incorporation by 

reference, Natural gas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission proposes to amend part 

284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 284—CERTAIN SALES AND 

TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS 

UNDER THE NATURAL GAS POLICY 

ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED 

AUTHORITIES 

1. The authority citation for part 284 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301– 

3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331– 

1356. 

2. Section 284.12 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi), 

adding paragraph (a)(1)(vii), and 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 284.12 Standards for pipeline business 

operations and communications. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Additional Standards (General 

Standards, Creditworthiness Standards, 

and Gas/Electric Operational 

Communications Standards) (Version 

1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(ii) Nominations Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(iv) Invoicing Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery 

Mechanism Related Standards (Version 

1.8, September 30, 2006) with the 

exception of Standard 4.3.4; 

(vi) Capacity Release Related 

Standards (Version 1.8, September 30, 

2006 (with minor corrections applied 

December 13, 2006); and 

(vii) Internet Electronic Transport 

Related Standards (Version 1.8, 

September 30, 2006) with the exception 

of Standard 10.3.2. 

* * * * * 

(b) Business practices and electronic 

communication requirements. An 

interstate pipeline that transports gas 

under subparts B or G of this part must 

comply with the following 

requirements. The regulations in this 

paragraph adopt the abbreviations and 

definitions contained in the North 

American Energy Standards Board 

Wholesale Gas Quadrant standards 

incorporated by reference in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–22206 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3001 

[Docket No. RM2008–6; Order No. 108] 

Periodic Reporting Rules 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

rulemaking petition. 

SUMMARY: Under a new law, the Postal 

Service must file an annual compliance 

report with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission on costs, revenues, rates, 

and quality of service associated with its 

products. It has filed documents with 

the Commission to change some of the 

methods it uses to compile the fiscal 

year 2008 report. In the Commission’s 

view, these documents constitute a 

rulemaking petition. Therefore, this 

document provides an opportunity for 

the public to comment on potential 

changes in periodic reporting rules. 

DATES: 1. Initial comments: September 

26, 2008. 

2. Reply comments: October 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 73 FR 51983 (September 8, 

2008). 

On September 12, 2008, the Postal 

Service filed a petition to initiate an 

informal rulemaking proceeding 

comparable to Docket No. RM2008–2 to 

consider two more proposed changes to 

the costing methods approved for 

periodic reporting.1 In Docket No. 

RM2008–2, nine numbered proposals 

are the subject of notice and comment 

rulemaking procedures. The Postal 

Service proposes that the two additional 

proposed changes be referred to as 

Proposal Ten and Proposal Eleven to 

avoid confusion with the nine proposals 

already under review. The Postal 

Service’s petition describes its two 

additional proposals, explains their 

background, objectives, rationale, and, 

to the extent possible, their likely 

impact in FY 2008. 

I. Procedural Expedition 

The same factors that led the 

Commission to expedite review of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55465 

2 In Docket No. ACR2007, these estimates were 

presented in USPS–FT07–9 and USPS–FY07–15. 3Postal Regulatory Commission Annual 

Compliance Determination, FY 2007, p. 24. 

nine proposals in Docket No. RM2008– 

2 apply here. There are fewer proposals 

and they appear to be simpler and 

potentially less controversial than there 

were in Docket No. RM2008–2. 

Accordingly, the Commission will set a 

shorter period for comments and reply 

comments for these two additional 

proposals, and will not schedule a 

technical conference ahead of time, as it 

did in Docket No. RM2008–2. 

II. Substance of Postal Service 

Proposals 

The Postal Service proposals, see 

Petition at 3 et seq., are described 

below. 

Proposal Ten. Proposed Change in 

Costing of Parcel Post Products. 

Objective: Changes are proposed for 

the development of costs for products 

within the old Parcel Post subclass: 

market dominant product Parcel Post 

Single-Piece, and competitive products 

Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service 

(PRS). 

Background: In FY2007, costs from 

the data systems were only available for 

the Parcel Post subclass as a whole. In 

the Annual Compliance Report, 

ACR2007, costs for the market-dominant 

product Parcel Post Single-Piece and 

competitive products Parcel Select and 

Parcel Return Service (PRS) were 

developed using methodologies 

previously accepted for the purposes of 

estimating cost differences deemed to be 

relevant to worksharing.2 In other 

words, the estimates presented were 

primarily topdown. In the Annual 

Compliance Determination report, the 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

concluded that Parcel Return Service 

may have had an FY07 cost coverage of 

only 97.7 percent, which would have 

been insufficient to meet the 

requirements of the PAEA. The 

Commission acknowledged that the PRS 

FY07 cost coverage might have been 

higher if there were cost savings, such 

as reduced carrier costs, but noted that 

dispositive data on that issue were not 

provided.3

The Postal Service has taken the 

initiative to obtain data for the Parcel 

Post products directly from the cost data 

systems. The In-Office Cost System 

(IOCS) and Carrier Cost Systems (CCS) 

can identify each of the three products 

separately for all of FY08. The 

Transportation Cost System (TRACS) 

can separate Parcel Post Single-Piece 

from Bulk Parcel Post for all of FY08, 

but can only separate Parcel Select from 

PRS starting quarter 2 of FY08. 

Proposal: For FY2008, we propose to 

develop mail processing and delivery 

costs for Parcel Post Single-Piece, Parcel 

Select and PRS using IOCS and CCS 

data. For transportation costs, we 

propose to use TRACS data to develop 

separate Parcel Post Single-Piece and 

Bulk Parcel Post, and to use the 

accepted methodology to split costs for 

Bulk Parcel Post into Parcel Select and 

PRS. These inputs would then be used 

in the CRA Model to develop a bottomup cost estimate for each product (i.e., 

displaying each product as a separate 

row in the CRA). 

Impact: The impact on costs will be 

unknown until the completion of the 

FY08 ACR. To the extent that the FY07 

procedure implicitly focused only on 

cost differences deemed relevant for 

worksharing, and thus may have tended 

to overstate PRS costs, and to the extent 

that the proposed bottom-up FY08 

procedures develop cost estimates 

intended to reflect all cost differences, 

and thus hopefully should neither 

overstate nor understate PRS costs, the 

new methodology perhaps may reduce 

PRS costs relative to the FY07 

methodology. 

Proposal Eleven: Proposed Change in 

Distribution Key for Volume-Variable 

Carrier Costs Relating to Blue Collection 

Boxes. 

Objective: The purpose of this 

document is to propose a methodology 

change, for FY2008, in the manner in 

which cost segment 7 (city street 

activity) volume variable costs incurred 

by blue collection boxes are distributed 

to products. 

Background: Cost Segment 7 blue 

collection box costs are incurred on 

both special purpose routes and letter 

routes. For special purpose routes, the 

accrued and volume variable costs are 

derived from the study of special 

purpose routes submitted in Docket No. 

R97–1. For letter routes, the accrued and 

volume variable costs are derived from 

the 2002 City Carrier Street Time Study 

(CCSTS), which was submitted in 

Docket No. R2005–1. In FY2007, the 

volume variable costs resulting from 

blue collection boxes were $46.7 million 

and $9.4 million from special purpose 

routes and letter routes, respectively. 

Currently, the same distribution factors 

are applied to attribute the volume 

variable costs from special purpose 

routes and letter routes to products. The 

existing factors are primarily derived 

from a special study submitted in 

Docket No. R84–1, but are adjusted 

annually based on current Revenue 

Pieces and Weight (RPW) data. 

Proposal: The Postal Service is 

proposing to distribute the volume 

variable costs incurred by blue 

collection boxes to products based on 

updated distribution factors from 

current data collected on City Carrier 

Cost System (CCCS) tests. 

Rationale: Collection mail volumes 

from customer delivery points have 

been captured by CCCS for several 

years. In FY2008, CCCS augmented the 

type of collection volume data recorded. 

On letter routes, CCCS now records, 

separately, the same information about 

blue collection box contents as it does 

for collection mail from customer 

delivery points. Utilizing updated 

distribution factors based on the current 

mail contents in blue boxes collected on 

letter routes signifies a methodology 

improvement for two reasons. First, the 

existing factors are largely derived from 

a study conducted approximately 25 

years ago, whereas the new factors 

estimate the current mail contents of 

blue collection boxes. Second, the 

proposed approach would directly 

assign costs to Priority Mail, Express 

Mail, Free mail, USPS mail, and 

International mail based on the actual 

frequency of each within the sampled 

data from collection boxes, rather than 

the current two-step process of first 

assigning a fixed proportion of 

collection costs to ‘‘Other’’, and then 

further distributing the ‘‘Other’’ costs to 

those products based on RPW volume. 

The current process is described in 

detail at pages 6–7 of the copies of 

materials provided at the technical 

conference with Notice of the United 

States Postal Service Regarding 

Materials Distributed or Requested at 

the August 27, 2008 Technical 

Conference, Docket No. RM2008–2 

(August 29, 2008). 

Impact: A preliminary review of 

partial-year new distribution data 

indicates First Class Mail constituting a 

higher percentage (i.e., in excess of 99 

percent) of mail in blue collection 

boxes, as compared with the study 

submitted in Docket No. R84–1. If this 

result holds, then First Class Mail will 

receive a higher percentage of volume 

variable costs incurred as a result of 

blue collection boxes than in previous 

years. In FY07, $53.8 million in volume 

variable costs from blue collection boxes 

was distributed to First Class Mail. 

Given that there was only $56.1 million 

in such costs to distribute to the 

products, the dollar impact on products 

due to this methodology proposal will 

be small. However, considering the 

numerous changes since 1984, such as 

a more complicated rate structure, 

Carrier Pickup, and rigid security 

regulations, the primary result of the 

preliminary review (i.e., that less than 

one percent of mail in the collection 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
55466 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

boxes is other than First Class Mail) 

seems reasonable. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Further 

Proposed Methodology Changes for the 

FY 2008 ACR (Proposals Ten and 

Eleven), filed September 12, 2008, is 

granted. 

2. Interested persons may submit 

initial comments on or before 

September 26, 2008. The proposals 

described in this order will be 

considered under the current procedural 

schedule in Docket No. RM2008–2. 

3. Reply comments may be submitted 

on or before October 3, 2008. 

4. William C. Miller is designated as 

the Public Representative representing 

the interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3652. 

By the Commission. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22639 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0705; FRL–8720–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is proposing to approve certain 

revisions, and to disapprove certain 

other revisions, of the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. These revisions relate to the 

application of the State’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program to 

vehicles operated on Federal 

installations. EPA is also proposing to 

correct certain plan revisions related to 

this subject that EPA previously 

approved in error. The intended effect is 

to ensure that vehicles operated on 

Federal installations are subject only to 

those requirements of the State’s vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program 

that apply in the same manner and to 

the same extent to nongovernmental 

entities. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0705, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• E-mail: kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Eleanor Kaplan 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 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 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

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 e-mail 

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 

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 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4147, 

kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State’s SIP Revision Submittal 

A. What revisions did the State submit? 

B. What is our evaluation of the revisions? 

III. Correction of Previously-Approved 

Provisions 

A. What provisions did we previously 

approve? 

B. What is our evaluation of the approved 

provisions? 

IV. Public Comment and Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1175), EPA 

proposed, under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’), to approve certain submittals 

by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) of 

revisions to the Nevada state 

implementation plan (SIP). The 

submittals that were the subject of our 

January 7, 2008 proposed rule primarily 

relate to attainment and maintenance of 

the carbon monoxide (CO) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the Truckee Meadows nonattainment 

area. In our January 7, 2008 proposed 

rule, we also proposed to approve the 

State’s submittal of an update to the 

regulatory element of the State’s mobile 

source SIP, including statutory 

provisions and rules related to the 

State’s vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) programs 

administered in Truckee Meadows 

(located within Washoe County) and Las 

Vegas Valley and Boulder City (located 

within Clark County). 

As part of our January 7, 2008 

proposed rule, we proposed to approve 

all of the State’s vehicle I/M rules with 

the exception of a particular subsection 

(subsection (2)) of a single rule, Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) section 

445B.595 (‘‘Inspections of vehicles 

owned by State or political subdivisions 

or operated on federal installations’’) 

(‘‘NAC 445B.595(2)’’), for which we 

proposed neither approval nor 

disapproval. We explained our ‘‘no 

action’’ proposal for NAC 445B.595(2) 

as follows: 

The Federal I/M rule requires that vehicles 

operated on Federal installations located 

within an I/M program area be tested 

regardless of whether the vehicles are 

registered in the state or local I/M area. See 

40 CFR 51.356(a)(4). However, we are not 

requiring states to implement 40 CFR 

51.356(a)(4) at this time. The Department of 

Justice has recommended to EPA that this 

Federal regulation be revised since it appears 

to grant states authority to regulate Federal 

installations in circumstances where the 

Federal government has not waived 

sovereign immunity. It would not be 

appropriate to require compliance with this 

regulation if it is not constitutionally 

authorized. EPA will be revising this 

provision in the future and will review state 

I/M SIPs with respect to this issue when this 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS