        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the California Brown Pelican and Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the Brown Pelican

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status reviews for the 12-month finding and 5-year review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants pursuant to section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We, therefore, are initiating a status review of the California brown pelican to determine if delisting under the Act is warranted. We note that the taxon on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species is the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). The petition requests specifically the delisting of the California brown pelican, (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), rather than the delisting of the entire listed entity. Brown pelicans in coastal States along the Atlantic Coast and in Florida and Alabama were removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on February 4, 1985 (50 FR 4938). The brown pelican remains listed as endangered throughout the remainder of its range in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean. Because a status review is also required for the 5-year review of listed species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we are electing to initiate a 5-year review of the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) throughout its range and prepare these reviews simultaneously. The purpose of reviews conducted under this section of the Act is to ensure that the classification of species as threatened or endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is accurate. To ensure that the reviews are comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on May 24, 2006. To allow us adequate time to conduct these reviews, we must receive your comments and information on or before July 24, 2006. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

          ADDRESSES:

          To submit comments and information on the 90-day finding for the California brown pelican delisting petition or the rangewide 5-year status review, see “Public Comments” under Supplementary Information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), contact Michael McCrary (see Public Comments), telephone, 805-644-1766; facsimile, 805-644-3958. For the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), contact Steve Chambers (see Public Comments), telephone, 505-248-6658; facsimile, 505-248-6788.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Petition Information

        We received a petition from Craig Harrison, of the law firm Hunton and Williams, representing the Endangered Species Recovery Council, dated December 14, 2005, to remove the California brown pelican from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We note that the taxon on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species is Pelecanus occidentalis. The petition requests specifically the delisting of the subspecies California brown pelican, (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), rather than the delisting of the entire listed entity. The petition contained information on population size, population trends, reproduction, and distribution of the California brown pelican, including information on the status and management of the California brown pelican in Mexico. It also contained information on what the petitioners reported as the elimination (e.g., banning of DDT and other contaminants) or management of threats that had originally resulted in the California brown pelican being listed as endangered.
        On the basis of information provided in the petition, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, and that removing the California brown pelican from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if removing the subspecies is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species. Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a finding as to whether delisting the California brown pelican is warranted by December 14, 2006.
        Five-Year Review—Why Is a 5-Year Review Conducted?
        Under the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) we maintain a List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Then, on the basis of such reviews, under section 4(c)(2)(B) we determine whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process.

        Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the brown pelican.

        What Information Is Considered in the Review?
        A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. These reviews will consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
        A. Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
        B. Habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;
        C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
        D. Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?”); and
        E. Other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
        How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?
        Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors:
        A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        C. Disease or predation;
        D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        Our assessment of these factors is required, under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, to be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available.
        What Could Happen as a Result of This Review?
        If we find that there is information concerning the brown pelican indicating a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following: (a) Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened; (b) remove the species from the List; or (c) find that various subunits of the species, such as subspecies or potential distinct population segments, differ in status such that one or more of these subunits should be reclassified or removed from the List. We may find that a change in classification of the currently listed species is not warranted, and the species should remain on the List under its current status.
        We will base our 12-month finding and 5-year review on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the information request period. Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of these simultaneous reviews, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, and make the requisite finding under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based on the results of the 5-year review.
        Public Comments
        To ensure that the status review for the California brown pelican and 5-year review for the brown pelican are complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting any additional information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, or any other interested parties. Information sought includes any data regarding historical and current distribution, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species, and threats to the species. We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous 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 inspection in their entirety.
        1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.
        2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our office at the address given above.

        3. You may send your comments and information by electronic mail (e-mail) directly to the Service at fws8pelicanpetition@fws.gov. Please avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption in your e-mail. Electronic attachments in standard formats (such as .pdf or .doc) are acceptable, but please name the software necessary to open any attachments in formats other than those given above. Please also include “Attn: Brown Pelican” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail, contact us directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 805-644-1766 or please submit your comments or information in writing using one of the alternate methods described above. In the event that our internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments or information by one of the alternate methods mentioned above. Please note that the e-mail address will be closed out at the termination of the information request period.

        All comments and materials received for both the status review of the California brown pelican and the 5-year review of the brown pelican throughout its range will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see addresses above).
        For the California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus Occidentalis Californicus) Petition To Delist
        We are requesting information on the status of the California brown pelican throughout its range in both the United States and Mexico. Information/comments of particular interest include:

        (1) Information on distribution, habitat selection, food habits, population density and trends, and habitat trends;

        (2) Information on the distribution and abundance of prey species of California brown pelicans and any changes in the distribution and abundance of prey over time;
        (3) Information on the effects of potential threats to California brown pelicans, including oil and gas development, contaminants, commercial and recreational fishing, disturbance, disease, and predation, in the United States and Mexico;
        (4) Information on management programs for California brown pelican conservation in the United States and Mexico.

        (5) Information or comments on the biological and administrative appropriateness of delisting California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), although it is only a portion of the listed entity.
        For the Brown Pelican (Pelecanus Occidentalis) Rangewide 5-Year Review
        In addition to the information requested above, we are also requesting information for the 5-year review of the brown pelican throughout its entire range in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean. We are requesting information on:
        (1) Species biology, including but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
        (2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to, amount, distribution, and suitability;
        (3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
        (4) Threat status and trends; and
        (5) Other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
        Author
        The primary author of this document is Christine Hamilton, biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: May 15, 2006.
           Kenneth Stansell,
          Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-7715 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 080702E]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that an application for EFPs contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration.  The Regional Administrator is considering the impacts of the activities to be authorized under the EFPs with respect to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue EFPs.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator proposes to issue EFPs in response to an application submitted by the Groundfish Group Associated Fisheries of Maine (Associated Fisheries of Maine), in collaboration with Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Manomet).  These EFPs would allow up to 12 vessels to fish for yellowtail flounder in NE multispecies year-round Closed Area II (CA II) during the months of August through December, 2002, and July, 2003, with the potential of the August trips occurring in 2003 depending on when the EFPs are issued.
          The purpose of the study is to collect observer-based data to determine whether seasonal access to portions of CA II for the purpose of harvesting Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder is possible without significant bycatch and discard of other regulated NE multispecies, particularly Atlantic cod and haddock.  This information could then be used by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS to determine the feasibility of establishing a seasonal access program that would allow the harvest of GB yellowtail flounder in portions of CA II.

          DATES:

          Comments on this action must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) on or before  September 5, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Yellowtail EFP Proposal.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
          Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) are available from the NE Regional Office at the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Allison Ferreira, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9103, email allison.ferreira@noaa.gov

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Three year-round closed areas were established in 1994 under Amendment 5 to the FMP to provide protection to concentrations of regulated NE multispecies, particularly Atlantic cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder.  These closure areas, Closed Area I, Closed Area II and the Nantucket Lightship Closure Area, have proven to be effective in improving the stock status of several species, in particular, the status of GB yellowtail flounder.  Spawning stock biomass (SSB) for GB yellowtail flounder increased from 2,600 mt in 1992 to 33,500 mt in 1999.  Mean stock biomass also increased from 4,500 mt in 1992 to 49,600 mt in 1999.  In 2001, the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee's (TRAC) Advisory Report on Stock Status estimated GB yellowtail flounder SSB to be between 37,000 and 50,500 mt (80-percent probability) and the mean biomass to be between 48,000 and 66,500 mt (80-percent probability).  Furthermore, in 2001, the Multispecies Monitoring Committee (MMC) estimated the mean biomass for GB yellowtail flounder to be 55,437 mt, which is well above the biomass target (Btarget) of 49,000 mt.  In addition, the MMC estimated the 2001 fishing mortality rate (F) for GB yellowtail flounder to be F2001=0.14, which is well below the target F of F0.1=0.25.
        In their EFP application, Manomet and the Associated Fisheries of Maine state that common knowledge within the fishing and scientific communities suggests that Atlantic cod and haddock are less available in certain portions of CA II during specific seasons.  The applicants feel that there is a need to support this knowledge with scientific data, potentially enabling the rebuilt GB yellowtail flounder resource to be utilized without impacting the management programs that currently protect the rebuilding stocks of cod and haddock on Georges Bank.
        Proposed EFP
        The Associated Fisheries of Maine, in collaboration with Manomet, have submitted an application for 17 EFPs (12 vessels and 5 alternates) that would exempt these vessels from the days-at-sea (DAS) requirements specified under 50 CFR 648.80 and 648.82, and CA II restrictions specified under § 648.81.  The proposed study would occur in the area south of 41°30′ N. lat. within CA II.  The experiment would consist of two vessels conducting one concurrent 5-day trip each month for the months of August through December, 2002 and July, 2003, for a total of 6 concurrent trips and 12 total vessel trips for the study.  Each trip would consist of 2 transiting days and 3 sampling days, for a total of 24 vessel transiting days and 36 vessel sampling days over the course of the study.  Participating vessels would be prohibited from fishing in areas outside of CA II during an experimental fishing trip.  In order to offset the cost of the experiment, the applicant has requested that the participating vessels be exempt from DAS requirements while participating in the proposed experimental fishery.
        Survey operations would follow a pre-determined sampling design.  The sample area would be divided into grids of approximately 6 square miles (15.5 sq. km)  During each trip, hauls would be conducted in each grid, with each haul lasting 20 minutes.  The sampling design would enable comparison trawls between vessels in order to standardize catch data between vessels.  A total of 51 hauls, 26 hauls for vessel 1 and 25 hauls for vessel 2, would be conducted during each trip.  Vessels would utilize standard otter trawl gear having a codend mesh size of 6.5-inch (16.5 cm) square mesh, the minimum mesh size for the GB Regulated Mesh Area.
        A total allowable catch (TAC) of GB yellowtail flounder of 220 mt would be established for the experimental fishery.  This equates to approximately 40,000 lb (18,144 kg) of yellowtail flounder per vessel, per trip.  Incidental catch of cod and haddock would be limited to 2,000 lb (907 kg) and 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per DAS, respectively.  In addition, all fish landed would have to meet minimum size requirements.
        Several species of skates are found in the southern portion of CA II where the proposed experimental fishery would be conducted.  Due to concerns over skate bycatch, particularly the bycatch of thorny and barndoor skate, the applicants have agreed to identify and record all skates caught and return all skates caught to the sea immediately in order to minimize mortality.  No skates would be retained for landing or sale.  In addition, the applicants have stated that the bycatch of skates would be avoided to the extent practicable.
        A minimum of two observers, consisting of Manomet scientific staff, would be present on board each participating vessel, equating to 100-percent observer coverage for this experimental fishery.  All catch would be sorted, weighed and recorded by species.  In addition, commercially important species, including all skate species, would be individually weighed and measured.  Observers would be responsible for collecting all biological and environmental data on NMFS observer forms.  Interim reports would be provided to NMFS at the end of each trip outlining total catch, including bycatch and discards.  Participating vessels may also be required to report estimates of daily catch to NMFS via a call-in system in order to monitor the GB yellowtail TAC of 220 mt requested for this experimental fishery.
        The EFPs would contain a provision that the Regional Administrator has the authority to reconsider the continuation of the proposed experimental fishery on a month-by-month basis.  The Regional Administrator would be authorized to terminate the experimental fishery if the yellowtail flounder TAC of 220 mt is exceeded or if excessive bycatch of cod, haddock and other species of concern (including, but not limited to, skate) occurs during any given trip.
        A draft EA has been prepared that analyzes the impacts of the proposed experimental fishery on the human environment.  This draft EA concludes that the proposed activities to be conducted under the requested EFPs are consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP, would not be detrimental to the well-being of any stocks of fish harvested, and would have no significant environmental impacts.  The draft EA also concludes that the proposed experimental fishery would not be detrimental to Essential Fish Habitat, marine mammals, or protected species.
        EFPs would be issued to up to 17 vessels exempting them from the DAS requirements and CA II restrictions of the FMP.
        Based on the results of the proposed experimental fishery, this action may lead to future rulemaking.

        Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        -
          Dated: August 14, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-21316 Filed 8-20-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Part 252
        [Docket DARS-2020-0036]
        RIN 0750-AL03
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Source Restrictions on Auxiliary Ship Component (DFARS Case 2020-D017); Correction

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          DoD is correcting proposed regulations that published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2020, to correct the clause number for the DFARS section on restriction on acquisition of large medium-speed diesel engines.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule published on September 29, 2020, at 85 FR 60943, continue to be accepted on or before November 30, 2020, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2020-D017, using any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2020-D017” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2020-D017” on any attached documents.
          • Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2020-D017 in the subject line of the message.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (A&S) DPC (DARS), Room 3B938, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6100.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the proposed rule DoD published in the Federal Register at 85 FR 60943 on September 29, 2020, titled “Source Restrictions on Auxiliary Ship Components”, make the following correction:
         1. On page 60945, in the 3rd column, amendatory instruction 9 is corrected to read as follows:
         9. Add section 252.225-70XX to read as follows:
        252.225-70XX Restriction on Acquisition of Large Medium-Speed Diesel Engines.
        As prescribed in 225.7010-5, use the following clause:

          Restriction on Acquisition of Large Medium-Speed Diesel Engines (Date)
          Unless otherwise specified in its offer, the Contractor shall deliver under this contract large medium-speed diesel engines manufactured in the United States, Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom.

        (End of clause)

          Jennifer D. Johnson,
          Regulatory Control Officer, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2020-22754 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 122
        [EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195; FRL-9722-5]
        RIN 2040-AF42
        Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is proposing revisions to its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 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. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For further information on this notice, you may contact Jeremy Bauer, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management via email at bauer.jeremy@epa.gov or telephone at 202-564-2775.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Applicability

        This notice does not impose requirements on any entity. The action proposed is intended to clarify the status of stormwater discharges from logging roads. Those with an interest in such discharges may be interested in this proposed action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this notice, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        B. Copies of This Document and Other Information
        This document is available for download at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/forestroads or under docket EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195.
        II. Background
        A. Purpose

        The EPA is issuing this notice to address the stormwater discharges identified under Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC).
        This notice proposes adding language to existing stormwater regulations to clarify that, for the purposes of assessing whether stormwater discharges are “associated with industrial activity,” the only facilities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are: rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. The effect of this would be to clarify, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's decision in NEDC, that discharges of stormwater from silviculture facilities other than the four specifically named silviculture facilities identified above do not require an NPDES permit.1

            1 This rulemaking responds to the uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit's holding in NEDC that certain channeled discharges of stormwater from logging roads constitute point source discharges, bringing them within the Section 402 NPDES permitting framework. This proposed rule, by clarifying what constitutes a discharge “associated with industrial activity,” makes clear that such discharges do not require NPDES permits even if they are point source discharges. Nothing in this proposed rule should be construed as conceding that discharges of stormwater from logging roads constitute point source discharges, a question on which the Supreme Court has granted review for the October 2012 term.

        B. Statutory Authority and Regulatory History
        The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To that end, the Act provides that the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful, except in compliance with other provisions of the statute. Generally, the Act provides for a permit program for the addition to waters of the United States of a pollutant from a point source, defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). In 1987 Congress amended the Clean Water Act with the addition of section 402(p), which required NPDES permits for certain categories of stormwater point source discharges and allowed EPA discretion to determine how pollution from other stormwater discharges would be addressed.
        For the initial phase, section 402(p)(1) created a temporary moratorium on NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from point sources except for those listed in section 402(p)(2), which includes discharges for which a permit had already been issued; discharges from large municipal separate storm sewer systems; and “industrial discharges.” Congress did not define industrial discharges, allowing the EPA to define the term. For subsequent phases, section 402(p)(5) directs the EPA to conduct studies, in consultation with the states, for “identifying those stormwater discharges or classes of stormwater discharges for which permits are not required”; “determining to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges”; and “establishing procedures and methods to control stormwater discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.” Section 402(p)(6) directs the Agency to issue regulations, in consultation with state and local officials, based on such studies. The section allows the EPA flexibility in issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges where appropriate and does not require the use of NPDES permits or any specific regulatory approach. Specifically, the section states that the regulations “shall establish priorities, establish requirements for state stormwater management programs, and establish expeditious deadlines” and may include “performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and treatment requirements, as appropriate.” 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). This flexibility is unique to stormwater discharges and is different than the treatment of stormwater discharges listed in section 402(p)(2)(B) of the Act, which requires a permit for a stormwater discharge “associated with industrial activity.”
        Prior to the 1987 Amendments, there were numerous questions regarding the appropriate means of regulating stormwater discharges within the NPDES program due to the water quality impacts of stormwater, the variable nature of stormwater, the large number of stormwater discharges, and the limited resources of permitting agencies. The EPA undertook numerous regulatory actions, which resulted in extensive litigation, in an attempt to address these unique discharges.

        EPA's Silvicultural Rule (40 CFR 122.27) predates the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act that created section 402(p) for stormwater controls. The Agency defined silvicultural point source as part of the Silvicultural Rule to specify which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program. The rule defines silvicultural point source to mean any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities which are operated in connection with silvicultural activities and from which pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States” and further explains that “the term does not include non-point source silvicultural activities such as nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff.”

        In 1990, following the 1987 amendments that directed the Agency to develop regulations requiring permits for large municipal separate storm sewer systems and stormwater “discharges associated with industrial activity,” the EPA promulgated the Phase I stormwater regulations. (55 FR 47990, November 16, 1990). The EPA defined in the Phase I regulations “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” which is not defined by the Act. In describing the scope of the term “associated with industrial activity,” several members of Congress explained in the legislative history that the term applied if a discharge was “directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” (Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. October 15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987)). The Phase I rule clarified the regulatory definition of “associated with industrial activity” by adopting the language used in the legislative history and supplementing it with a description of various types of areas (e.g., material handling sites, sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment, etc.) that are directly related to an industrial process and to industrial facilities identified by the EPA. The supplemental language in the Phase I rule also includes the term “immediate access road.” The EPA considers “immediate access roads” to refer to roads which are exclusively or primarily dedicated for use by the industrial facility. See 55 FR 47990, 48009 (Nov. 16, 1990). These “immediate access roads” do not include public access roads that are state, county, or federal roads such as highways or Bureau of Land Management roads which happen to be used by the facility. See id. The Phase I regulation defines the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” to include stormwater discharges from facilities identified in the rule by standard industrial classification or “SIC” code at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Agency specified in the Phase I rule that the term does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of the EPA's regulations, including the Silvicultural Rule. As discussed above, the EPA had previously specified under the Silvicultural Rule which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program (40 CFR 122.27). The EPA intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities. For the “silvicultural point source[s]” (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) regulated under the Phase I rule, the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” includes “immediate access roads” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii)). Unlike “immediate access roads” associated with industrial facilities, many logging roads have multiple uses, including recreation and general transportation, and commonly extend over long distances (i.e.; may not provide “immediate access” to an industrial site). The intent of the EPA in this notice of proposed rulemaking is that the NPDES program requirements be implemented with regard to “immediate access roads” in the same way they were implemented prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit.
        In developing the second phase of stormwater regulations, the EPA submitted to Congress in March 1995 a report that presented the nature of stormwater discharges from municipal and industrial facilities that were not already regulated under the Phase I regulations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995. Storm Water Discharges Potentially Addressed by Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Program: Report to Congress. Washington, DC EPA 833-K-94-002). On December 8, 1999, the EPA promulgated the Phase II stormwater regulations to address stormwater discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems and construction sites that disturb one to five acres. (64 FR 68722, December 8, 1999). The EPA retains the authority to designate additional stormwater discharges for regulation at a later date under either CWA section 402(p)(2)(E) or 402(p)(6).

        The Phase II regulations for stormwater controls were challenged in Environmental Defense Center v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) (EDC v. EPA). In that case, petitioners contended that the EPA arbitrarily failed to regulate discharges from forest roads under the Phase II rule. The court held that the EPA failed to consider the petitioners' comments and remanded the issue to the EPA “so that it may consider in an appropriate proceeding Petitioner's contention that § 402(p)(6) requires the EPA to regulate forest roads. The EPA may then either accept Petitioners' arguments in whole or in part, or reject them on the basis of valid reasons that are adequately set forth to permit judicial review.” Id. at 863.
        More recently, in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC), a citizen suit was filed alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging stormwater from ditches alongside two logging roads in state forests without a permit. The court held that because the stormwater runoff from the two roads in question is collected by and then discharged from a system of ditches, culverts and channels, there was a point source discharge of industrial stormwater for which an NPDES permit is required. As discussed above, the Agency specified in the Phase I rule that the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of the EPA's regulations, including the aforementioned Silvicultural Rule. The EPA intends through this regulation to more clearly limit Phase I applicability to only those silvicultural facilities that are “rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities.”
        In response to the partial remand under EDC v. EPA, the Agency continues to review available information on the water-quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads as discussed above, as well as existing practices to control those discharges and is considering a range of options to address such discharges, which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency's section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The EPA believes that the broad range of flexible approaches under section 402(p)(6) may be well suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. EPA is currently evaluating comments on its Notice of Intent to Revise Stormwater Regulations To Specify That an NPDES Permit is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads and To Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality Impacts From Forest Road Discharges (77 FR 30473, May 23, 2012), as it considers possible next steps.

        In the interim, the EPA notes that Congress has directed that permits are not required for stormwater discharges for logging roads. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, until September 30, 2012, the Administrator may not require an NPDES permit or directly or indirectly require any state to require a permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the construction, use, or maintenance of which are associated with silvicultural activities.
        III. Proposed Revisions and Rationale
        A. Proposed Revisions

        The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that for the purposes of defining stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This revision does not remove any existing exemptions. Though the existing language in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) excepts SIC code 2434, wood kitchen cabinets, the wood kitchen cabinets category remains covered in a separate subsection. See id. at 122.26(b)(14)(xi) (listing “Facilities covered under Standard Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434 * * *” as engaging in industrial activity for purposes of the industrial stormwater regulations.)
        B. Rationale

        The EPA did not intend logging roads themselves to be regulated as industrial facilities. However, in light of NEDC, the EPA proposes the addition of language to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) to clarify the Agency's intent.
        The EPA believes that stormwater discharges from forest roads, including logging roads, should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act because the section allows for a broad range of flexible approaches that may be better suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use.
        C. Request for Comment
        The EPA requests comment on whether the proposed language sufficiently clarifies that discharges of stormwater from logging roads do not require an NPDES permit. The EPA does not think that changes to 40 CFR 122.27 are necessary to accomplish the goal of clarifying the scope of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, but welcomes comments on this point and reserves the option of making changes to that section as appropriate to clearly articulate the Agency's intent.
        Although the EPA has conducted a preliminary review of the comments submitted in response to the “Notice of Intent to Revise Stormwater Regulations To Specify That an NPDES Permit is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads and To Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality Impacts From Forest Road Discharges” (77 FR 30473, May 23, 2012), the Agency does not plan to respond to these comments when taking final action on the rule proposed in today's notice. If you submitted comments in response to the earlier Federal Register Notice that you believe to be relevant to the rule proposed today, please resubmit your comments in accordance with the process outlined above.
        IV. Economic Impact
        The proposed action clarifies existing regulations and has no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires the EPA to estimate the burden on regulated entities to comply with information collection requirements of the EPA's regulations. This proposed action would clarify existing regulations and would have no impact on existing information collection requirements.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business “as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;” (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
        After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, the proposed rule will clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that an NPDES permit is not required for these stormwater discharges. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This proposed action would not have Federalism implications. This proposed action would clarify existing regulations and would have no economic impact. Thus, it would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

        This proposed action would not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        The proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Moreover, this proposed action would clarify existing regulations and would have no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        The proposed action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Additionally, the proposed change does not involve the installation of treatment or other components that use a measurable amount of energy.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        The proposed action would clarify existing regulations and would make no change to existing standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies must do this by identifying and addressing as appropriate any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
        The EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The proposed action would clarify existing regulations and would have no economic, public health, or environmental impacts.

          List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 122
          Environmental protection, water pollution control.

          Dated: August 24, 2012.
          Lisa P. Jackson,
          Administrator.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 122 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
          1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

            Subpart B—[Amended]

          2. Section 122.26 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii) to read as follows:

            § 122.26
            Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

            (b)  * * *
            (14)  * * *
            (ii) Facilities classified within Standard Industrial Classification 24, Industry Group 241 that are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities defined in 40 CFR 122.27(b)(2)-(3) and Industry Groups 242 through 249; 26 (except 265 and 267), 28 (except 283), 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441, 373; (not included are all other types of silviculture facilities);

      [FR Doc. 2012-21432 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        POSTAL SERVICE
        39 CFR Part 111
        Preparation Changes for Securing Packages of Mail

          AGENCY:
          Postal Service.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Postal Service is proposing to amend the packaging standards in Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) M020 to help ensure that packages maintain their integrity during transportation and postal processing. DMM M020 will prescribe general standards for preparing and securing all packages and will incorporate standards that pertain individually to packages on pallets, packages in sacks, and packages in trays.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Operational Requirements, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 7301, Washington, DC 20260-7031. Copies of all written comments (available for $0.15 per copy per page) will be available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following address: Library, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 11800, Washington, DC 20260-1540. Copies of comments may also be requested via fax or e-mail.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cheryl Beller, 202-268-5166, cbeller1@e-mail.usps.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Many packages of Periodicals and Standard Mail tendered to the Postal Service on pallets or in sacks do not maintain their integrity during transportation to postal facilities and during postal processing. The Postal Service must redirect the resulting loose packages or broken packages (individual pieces) to higher-cost operations. If packages lose their integrity while being processed on small parcel and bundle sorters (SPBSs), the result can be machine slowdowns and stoppages as well as postal employees manually processing these packages. The increased costs of labor to process loose or broken packages is reflected in higher rates paid by mailers. In addition to rate implications, package breakage also damages mailpieces and has a negative impact on service, results that the mailing industry and the Postal Service would like to avoid.
        Data collected by the Mailers' Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) Package Integrity Work Group, comprising Postal Service and mailing industry representatives, revealed that, during the first handling, packages of Periodicals and Standard Mail in sacks break at a much greater rate than packages on pallets. This data also disclosed that packages of pieces with glossy (coated) cover stock break at higher rates than packages of pieces with covers of uncoated stock. An analysis of the data indicates that additional standards are necessary to improve the integrity of Periodicals and Standard Mail packages prepared in sacks and that some current standards for packages in sacks and on pallets also require clarification to improve packaging in general. Currently, with the exception of Standard Mail and Package Services Mail placed on bulk mail center (BMC) pallets, DMM M020 does not differentiate between packaging standards for mail placed on pallets and mail placed in sacks. Unlike palletized packages, which have maximum weight limits prescribed in DMM M045, there are no existing standards for Periodicals and Standard Mail that limit the size or weight of packages in sacks. Consequently, mailers of Periodicals and Standard Mail may prepare packages that weigh more than 20 pounds and are, as a result, incompatible with processing on SPBSs. Heavier packages are also subject to more breakage if not properly secured. This is particularly true of sacked mail due to the additional handling it receives compared with palletized mail. Under the proposed rules, DMM M020 prescribes general standards for preparing and securing packages of all classes of mail and revises and incorporates standards that pertain individually to packages on pallets and packages in sacks.
        Proposed new standards limit the weight of sacked packages of Periodicals and Standard Mail to a maximum of 20 pounds and the height of these packages to a maximum of 8 inches for pieces of uncoated stock and to maximums ranging from 3 inches to 6 inches, depending on the securing method, for pieces with coated cover stock. As information, new mail preparation standards for Bound Printed Matter flats implemented January 7, 2001, limit the weight of packages in sacks and on pallets to 20 pounds, except that packages placed in 5-digit sacks or on 5-digit/scheme pallets may weigh up to 40 pounds. It is also proposed that the standards for all classes be amended to clarify when pieces should be counter-stacked to create packages of uniform thickness and to provide more emphasis on the standard that requires packages over 1 inch high to be secured with at least two bands or shrinkwrap.
        It is also proposed that the current requirement to secure double-banded packages of all classes of mail first around the length and then around the girth be revised to eliminate a required banding sequence. Automated production lines in large printing plants are not designed to secure packages around the length first, and exceptions to the current standard must continually be granted to address this issue. Magazines and flyers are typically bound with stitches or glue and then stacked for packaging in accordance with the applicable presort, generally in groups ranging from 6 to 100 pieces. The stack is ejected and travels directly into a bander that secures the girth first, and then the length if a second band is required. If the first band was placed around the length of the stack, the stack would not be held securely enough to allow the second band to go around the girth because the backbone or spine is thicker than the face or side cut (length). This thickness variation would cause the bundle to fall apart, also affecting transport into another securing operation such as shrinkwrapping.
        Data Collection To Determine Package Breakage Rates for Live Mail

        The Postal Service and the mailing industry have been working together to better understand the implications of package breakage and to identify opportunities to quantify and improve the current situation. In October and November 1999, the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group collected and analyzed data regarding the condition of packages of nonletter-size Periodicals and Standard Mail flats at the locations within processing facilities (e.g., SPBS feed belts) where they were initially unloaded by the Postal Service from mailer-prepared sacks and pallets. This data was collected at four Postal Service processing and distribution centers (P&DCs) and two BMCs.
        Data collected for this live mail shows that of a total of 78,511 packages on pallets that were observed, 832 packages, or 1.1 percent, were broken when first unloaded from the mailer-prepared pallets by the Postal Service. For mail in sacks, of a total of 11,826 packages that were observed, 2,074 packages, or 17.5 percent, were broken when the sacks were emptied. Broken packages were identified as those with a total loss of integrity resulting in one or more pieces loose or missing. Various characteristics concerning the packages and the mailpieces were recorded to identify key factors affecting package integrity. For all mail in sacks, the breakage rates were statistically very close, ranging from 16.7 to 19.8 percent, when packages were secured with two rubber bands, two plastic straps, or two strings (twine). Shrinkwrapped packages broke at a rate of 13.3 percent while packages secured with shrinkwrap plus one strap broke at the lowest rate of 9.5 percent.

        The data shows that coated paper stock leads to significantly greater package breakage than uncoated stock. Coated paper is the slick, shiny paper usually associated with magazines and catalogs while uncoated stock is often associated with newspapers and enveloped mail. For packages in sacks, the breakage rate for mailpieces with covers of coated paper stock was 23.6 percent compared with a breakage rate of 11.6 percent for mailpieces of uncoated stock. For pieces of coated paper stock, shrinkwrap plus one strap proved to be the most effective packaging method. Shrinkwrap alone was the second most effective packaging method, followed by double banding with rubber bands, string (twine), or plastic straps. All methods of double banding caused packages to break at about the same rate. However, as package height increases, the breakage rate for shrinkwrapped packages increases at a greater rate than the breakage rate for packages secured with two plastic straps. As a bundle increases in height, it often becomes more rigid and two plastic straps are likely to maintain package integrity more effectively. Packages secured with shrinkwrap of insufficient strength or durability are less likely to retain their integrity, as the packages become taller (and consequently heavier), particularly when those packages are placed in sacks. Mail in sacks is subject to additional processing steps before the contents are distributed by the Postal Service (e.g., sacks bedloaded on trucks or dumped on sack sorting equipment) when compared to mail prepared on pallets.
        The data collected during the live mail tests in October and November 1999 are contained in USPS-LR-1-297 filed in conjunction with R2000-1.
        Results of Controlled Package Integrity Test To Determine Key Drivers of Package Breakage
        On the basis of results of the live mail tests, the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group concluded that the most significant reductions in package breakage could be achieved in the near future by improving the integrity of packages currently prepared in sacks, particularly for packages of mailpieces with covers of coated stock. These changes supplement other efforts, described later in this notice, that are underway to move mail out of sacks and onto pallets, when possible. Accordingly, a controlled test of mail prepared in sacks was conducted in August 2000. A variety of packaging methods and mailpiece types, both coated and uncoated, were tested with test packages ranging in height from under 1 inch up to approximately 8 inches. These pieces were representative of the Periodicals and Standard Mail mailstreams. The following mailpiece types and securing methods were tested:
        • Unbound, uncoated half-fold newspapers secured with plastic straps and with string (twine).
        • Quarter-fold newsprint advertisements secured with plastic straps and with string (twine).
        • DVDs prepared in padded plastic containers measuring approximately 71/2 inches by 53/8 inches by 5/8 inch and secured with plastic straps and with rubber bands.
        • 9-inch by 12-inch enveloped pieces secured with plastic strap(s), with rubber bands, and with string.
        • Individually polywrapped magazines secured with plastic straps.
        • Saddle-stitched magazines with coated cover stock secured with shrinkwrap, with plastic straps, with string, and with rubber bands.
        • Perfect bound magazines with coated cover stock secured with plastic straps, with rubber bands, and with shrinkwrap.
        Sacks containing the test pieces were deposited at the Cincinnati BMC, processed through the sack sorter, and transported to the Philadelphia BMC, where they were processed through that facility's sack sorter before being unloaded to collect information about the condition of the packages. This was consistent with the transportation and processing of sacked mail that is entered at an origin facility for delivery to addresses outside of the mailer's local BMC service area. A small number of sacks were deposited at the Philadelphia BMC and were not processed through any sack sorter before being unloaded for examination of their contents.
        Results from the controlled test show that the average breakage rate for packages of unbound, uncoated newspapers/newsprint advertisements and individually polywrapped pieces combined was approximately 3 percent while the average breakage rate for pieces with coated cover stock was approximately 55 percent. For the pieces with coated cover stock, the breakage rate increased significantly as the height of the packages increased. For pieces with coated cover stock, packages over 3 inches high (4 inches to 6 inches) broke apart at rates ranging from 42 to 100 percent depending on the package height and securing method. The taller packages that were secured with two plastic straps had the lowest breakage rates. Packages secured with shrinkwrap plus one strap had lower breakage rates than packages secured with only shrinkwrap. These data are consistent with the data collected in October and November 1999 for the live mail test which showed that double plastic bands or shrinkwrap plus one band are generally more effective for securing taller packages. It should be noted that various formulations of shrinkwrap were used to secure mail in the controlled test and the shrinkwrap ranged in thickness from 1 to 1.5 mil.
        The breakage rate for the 9 inch × 12 inch enveloped mailpieces of uncoated paper stock was approximately 58 percent. The breakage rate for these pieces, which were of irregular thickness due to an insert enclosed in the center of each piece, also increased significantly as the height of the packages increased. This occurred because the packages were thicker in the center (football-shaped) and the straps, if they moved off the thicker package center during transportation or processing, would tend to fall off the thinner edges creating loose or broken packages.
        Analysis of Data and Proposed Standards
        Analysis of the data gathered from the controlled test described above indicates that increasing package height results in greater breakage rates, with breakage increasing by approximately 14 percentage points for each additional inch of package height. This results in a very high breakage rate for packages 4 inches and taller. On average, the breakage rate for shrinkwrapped packages was 15 percent higher than for packages secured with two plastic straps. Also, by adding a single plastic strap to shrinkwrapped packages, the breakage rate for shrinkwrapped packages was reduced by 25 percent.

        As a result, the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group has identified preparation changes that will improve package integrity and reduce the percent of packages that break. This reduction in breakage will reduce processing costs. The proposed changes contained in this Federal Register notice have been drafted based on the data collected during the live mail and controlled tests. The specific proposed changes are described in detail below.
        The key focus of the proposed changes is to significantly reduce package breakage for mailpieces with covers of coated stock that are prepared in sacks, identified as a key contributor to the package integrity problem. The proposed standards requiring smaller packages for some sacked mail may result in a greater number of packages in sacks for mail found to currently have exceptionally high breakage rates. However, any costs for handling additional smaller packages will be greatly outweighed by modeled savings that will result from avoiding additional package handlings, recovery costs, and single-piece handlings that are incurred when these packages break prematurely. The proposed revisions to the DMM, in conjunction with other Postal Service/Industry initiatives, are intended to and expected to improve package integrity in general for mail both in sacks and on pallets.
        It is important to note that representatives of many Periodicals and Standard Mail associations, serving large and small volume mailers, have been involved in all aspects of test design, data collection and analysis, and development of recommendations to improve package integrity. These mailers produce a wide variety of flat-size mailpieces (and irregulars for Periodicals) using all currently permitted package securing methods.
        Additional Efforts To Reduce Package Breakage and Associated Costs
        Amending and revising the DMM packaging standards to improve mailer preparation, as proposed in this notice, is one of several efforts underway to reduce costs associated with processing packages of Periodicals non-letters and Standard Mail flats. Based on analyses of the test data described above and on other studies and discussions between the Postal Service and Periodicals industry representatives, it was determined that other steps, in addition to improvements in packaging by mailers, could help reduce Postal Service handling costs that relate to package breakage. These steps include working with mailers to move mail from sacks to pallets, improving package-sorting methods related to SPBS feed systems, improving Postal Service recovery methods for broken or damaged packages of flats, and working with mailers to develop a process enabling customers to prepare flat-size mail in a manner that supports processing on flat-sorting machines.
        Many mailers have indicated that, until recently, they were not aware of the package breakage problem at Postal Service facilities. In response, and at the recommendation of the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group, the Postal Service established the MTAC Feedback Mechanism Work Group to develop effective methods to provide mailers with information about mail that is not properly prepared and that is adding costs to processing operations. The expectation is that when mailers receive feedback about specific package integrity problems, they will take appropriate steps to improve their packaging methods.
        The MTAC Package Integrity Work Group also developed a video, produced and disseminated by the Postal Service, to raise mailer awareness of the impact of poor package integrity. Copies are available to mailers and have been shown at Postal Customer Council (PCC) meetings, focus groups, and Postal Forums. The video has also been used as a training tool by mailers to raise the awareness of their employees to the importance of package integrity and to focus on improving packaging. Additional videos are being developed to focus on best practices in packaging for small volume and large volume mailers.
        Other efforts are underway by the mailing industry, particularly large printers, to analyze how changing presort parameters affects containerization in order to move mail out of sacks, where it is more vulnerable to package breakage and less likely to be drop shipped, by optimizing palletization.
        The Postal Service has made several modifications to SPBS feed systems to reduce package breakage when containers are unloaded and when the packages are transported on belts to keying stations. Broken package recovery methods have also been modified to reduce costs.
        Projected lower Postal Service mail processing costs, due to reduced package breakage, were incorporated into the rates resulting from the R2000-1 rate case. These savings were based, in part, on anticipated improvements in the preparation of packages of Periodicals non-letter-size mail and Standard Mail flats resulting from the activities of the MTAC Package Integrity Work Group and other related efforts that are currently underway. The following proposed DMM changes are attributable to those activities. The Postal Service is proposing to implement these revisions to the current mail preparation standards effective June 1, 2001.
        Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites comments on the following proposed revisions of the DMM, incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR part 111.

          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, 414, 3001—3011, 3201—3219, 3403—3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

          2. Revise the following sections of the DMM as set forth below:
          M MAIL PREPARATION AND SORTATION

          M020 Packages

          1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
          [Amend 1.1 by replacing the reference to 1.6 with 1.2 to read as follows:]
          1.1 Facing

          Except as noted in 1.2, all pieces in a package must be “faced” (i.e., arranged with the addresses in the same read direction), with an address visible on the top piece.
          [Amend the heading of 1.2 and revise the text to require counter-stacking of pieces of irregular thickness, when appropriate, to create packages of uniform thickness to read as follows:]
          1.2 Counter-Stacking—Sacked and Palletized Mail

          Packages of flats and other pieces of nonuniform thickness must be prepared by counter-stacking if counter-stacking will create packages of more uniform thickness. Counter-stacking is appropriate for saddle-stitched mailpieces and pieces where one edge is thicker than other edges or one corner is thicker than other corners. When counter-stacking, pieces must all have the addresses facing up and be divided into no more than four approximately equal groups with each group rotated 180 degrees from the preceding and/or succeeding group(s). When pieces are nonuniform in thickness because they are thicker in the center instead of along an edge or corner, counter-stacking will generally not result in a package of uniform thickness (e.g., a football-shaped package would be created). Instead of counter-stacking such pieces, limit the height/thickness of the package to from 3 to 6 inches to ensure the package will stay together during normal transit and handling.

          [Redesignate 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 as 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7, respectively, and add new 1.4 to read as follows:]
          1.4 Securing Packages—General
          Package preparation is subject to the following requirements:
          a. Packages must be able to withstand normal transit and handling without breakage or injury to Postal Service employees.
          b. Packages must be secured with banding, shrinkwrap, or shrinkwrap plus one or more bands. Banding includes plastic bands, rubber bands, twine/string, or similar material. Use of wire or metal banding is not permitted.
          c. Where permitted by standard, when one band is used, it must be placed tightly around the girth (narrow dimension).
          d. Except under 1.5 and 2.1f, packages over 1 inch thick must be secured with at least 2 bands or with shrinkwrap. When double banding is used to secure packages, it must encircle the length and girth of the package at least once. Additional bands may be used if none lies within 1 inch of any package edge.
          e. Banding tension must be sufficient to the point that the bands tighten and depress the edges of the package so pieces will not slip out of the banding during transit and processing. Loose banding is not allowed.
          f. When twine/string is used to band packages, the knot(s) must be secure so the banding does not come loose during transit and processing.
          [Amend the heading of redesignated 1.5, add new 1.5a, and redesignate the current content of redesignated 1.5 as 1.5b to read as follows:]
          1.5 Packages on Pallets
          In addition to 1.1 through 1.4, packages on pallets must meet the following standards:
          a. Except as noted in 1.5b, packages up to 1 inch in height (thickness) must be secured with appropriate banding, placed at least once around the girth, or with shrinkwrap. Packages over 1 inch in height must be secured with at least two bands (plastic bands, rubber bands, twine/string, or similar material), one around the length and one around the girth, with shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands.
          b. Packages may be secured with heavy-gauge shrinkwrap over plastic banding, only shrinkwrap, or only banding material if they can stay together during normal processing. Except for packages of individually polywrapped pieces, packages on BMC pallets must be shrinkwrapped and machinable on BMC parcel sorters. Packages and bundles of individually polywrapped pieces may be secured with banding material only. Machinability is determined by the Postal Service. If used, banding material must be applied at least once around the length and once around the girth; wire and metal strapping are prohibited.
          [Revise the first sentence of redesignated 1.6 to indicate that packages of Bound Printed Matter must also meet the applicable maximum package size standards in M045 and M722 to read as follows. No other changes to text.]
          1.6 Package Size—Bound Printed Matter
          Each “logical” package (the total group of pieces for a package destination) of Bound Printed Matter must meet the applicable minimum and maximum package size standards prescribed in M045 or M722. * * *

          [Redesignate former 1.7 as 1.9 and add new 1.8 to read as follows:]
          1.8 Packages in Sacks—Periodicals and Standard Mail
          Periodicals and Standard Mail prepared in sacks must be secured in packages as follows:
          a. The maximum weight for all packages is 20 pounds.
          b. Packages must be able to withstand normal transit and handling without breakage or injury to Postal Service employees.
          c. Packages up to 1 inch in height (thickness) must be secured with appropriate banding, placed at least once around the girth (narrow dimension), or with shrinkwrap. Packages over 1 inch in height must be secured with at least two bands (plastic bands, rubber bands, or twine/string), one around the length and one around the girth, with shrinkwrap, or with shrinkwrap plus one or two bands.

          d. Packages of pieces with covers of coated stock that are not individually enclosed in a mailing wrapper (e.g., magazines or catalogs with glossy covers not individually enclosed in an envelope, paper wrapper, or plastic wrapper (polybag)) are subject to these conditions:
          (1) Except as noted in d.(2), packages must not exceed 3 inches in height (thickness).
          (2) Packages of such pieces secured with shrinkwrap plus one or two plastic straps, or with at least two plastic straps, one around the length and one around the girth, must not exceed 6 inches in height (thickness).
          (3) Packages may be measured at the lowest (thinnest) point to determine the package height (thickness).

          (4) A package that exceeds the maximum prescribed height by less than the thickness of a single piece meets the standard (e.g., if a glossy piece is 0.625 (5/8) of an inch thick, five pieces may be secured in a package 3.125 inches high).
          e. Packages containing pieces with outer surfaces of uncoated stock are subject to these conditions:
          (1) Packages must not exceed 8 inches in height (thickness).

          (2) Uncoated stock also includes pieces that are individually enclosed in an envelope, paper wrapper, or plastic wrapper (polybag), as well as pieces with outer surfaces composed of material other than paper (e.g., plastic, cloth, fiberboard, or metal).
          (3) It is recommended that such packages not exceed 6 inches in height (thickness).
          (4) Packages may be measured at the lowest (thinnest) point to determine the package height (thickness).

          (5) A package that exceeds the maximum prescribed height by less than the thickness of a single piece meets the standard (e.g., if a piece with uncoated cover stock is 0.75 (3/4) of an inch thick, 11 pieces may be secured in a package 8.25 inches high).
          [Amend the heading of redesignated 1.9 to read as follows. No other changes to text.]
          1.9 Exception to Package Preparation—Mail in Trays

          2.0 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS—FIRST-CLASS MAIL, PERIODICALS, AND STANDARD MAIL, AND FLAT-SIZE BOUND PRINTED MATTER
          [Amend 2.1 by copying the content of 2.3b to new 2.1f and revising the content to read as follows:]
          2.1 Cards and Letter-Size Pieces

          f. Packages up to 1 inch thick must be secured with appropriate banding placed once around the girth (narrow dimension). Packages over 1 inch thick must be secured with at least two bands, one around the length and one around the girth.
          [Amend 2.2 by revising the content to read as follows:]
          2.2 Flat-Size Pieces
          Packages of flat-size pieces must be secure and stable subject to specific weight limits in M045 if placed on pallets, specific weight and height limits in 1.8 for Periodicals and Standard Mail placed in sacks, and, for Bound Printed Matter in sacks, specific weight limits in M720. Flat-size pieces must be prepared in packages except under 1.9 and, for First-Class Mail, under M820.3.0.
          [Amend the heading of 2.3, redesignate 2.3a as the content of 2.3, and delete current 2.3b to read as follows:]
          2.3 Pieces With Simplified Address

          For mail prepared with a simplified address, all pieces for the same post office must be prepared in packages of 50 when possible. If packages of other quantities are prepared, the actual number of pieces must be shown on the facing slip that must be attached to show distribution desired (e.g., rural route, city route, post office boxholder).

          An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes will be published if the proposal is adopted.

            Stanley F. Mires,
            Chief Counsel, Legislative.

      [FR Doc. 01-4146 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7710-12-U