Negotiated Service Agreements, 7704-7708 [05-2883]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7704
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
economically significant rule and would
not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule would not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Environment
We have considered the
environmental impact of this proposed
rule and concluded that under figure 2–
1, paragraph 34(h), of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is
categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. This rule
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:39 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
fits paragraph 34(h) as it establishes
special local regulations. A ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ is available in
the docket for inspection or copying
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Negotiated Service Agreements
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:
PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE
PARADES
1. The authority citation for Part 100
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on April 2,
2005, add temporary § 100.35T01–005
to read as follows: § 100.35T01–005
Special Local Regulation; Manhattan
College Invitational Regatta, Harlem
River, New York, NY
(a) Regulated area. All portions of the
Harlem River between the Macombs
Dam Bridge and the University Heights
Bridge, New York, NY.
(b) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
on Saturday, April 2, 2005.
(c) Special Local Regulations. (1) All
vessels are prohibited from transiting
the area without authorization of the
COTP, New York or the designated onscene-patrol personnel.
(2) Authorization to transit the area
during the enforcement period may be
obtained by contacting Activities New
York, Marine Events Coordinator, at
(718) 354–4197, at least 2 business days
prior to the event.
(3) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the
designated on-scene-patrol personnel.
These personnel comprise
commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being
hailed by a U. S. Coast Guard vessel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other
means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
Dated: February 8, 2005.
John L. Grenier,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Acting
Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–2869 Filed 2–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39 CFR Part 3001
[Docket No. RM2005–3; Order No. 1430]
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document initiates the
third in a series of rulemakings on
procedures related to Negotiated Service
Agreements. This proposal addresses
rules applicable to Postal Service
requests to extend or modify previously
recommended Negotiated Service
Agreements that are currently in effect.
The changes, if adopted, will assist in
clarifying the type of requests that
qualify as extensions and the type of
conditions that constitute modifications.
DATES: Initial comments: March 14,
2005; reply comments: April 11, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel,
at 202–789–6818.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
68 FR 52552, September 4, 2003.
69 FR 7574, February 18, 2004.
70 FR 4802, January 31, 2005.
In Opinion and Recommended
Decision, Docket No. MC2002–2
(Opinion), the Commission made a
commitment to initiate a series of
rulemakings designed to facilitate
consideration of Postal Service requests
based on Negotiated Service
Agreements.1 See, Opinion
paras. 1006, 2007, 4026, 4041–2, 7026,
and 8023. The first rulemaking,
docketed as RM2003–5, developed rules
for baseline and for functionally
equivalent Negotiated Service
Agreements.2 It also established the
organizational framework for the
complete set of Commission rules
applicable to requests based on
Negotiated Service Agreements.3
1 Docket No. MC2002–2, Experimental Rate and
Service Changes to Implement Negotiated Service
Agreement with Capital One Services, Inc., was the
first docket in which the Commission considered
and recommended a Postal Service request
predicated on a Negotiated Service Agreement.
2 PRC Order No. 1391 established the rules
applicable to baseline and functionally equivalent
Negotiated Service Agreements. The rules are
incorporated into the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure at Subpart L. 39 CFR
3001.190 et seq.
3 Space was reserved at 39 CFR 3001.197 for
requests to renew previously recommended
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
A second rulemaking, docketed as
RM2005–2, has been initiated to explore
whether improvements can be made to
the previously issued rules applicable to
functionally equivalent Negotiated
Service Agreements. The Postal Service
first invoked the rules applicable to
functionally equivalent Negotiated
Service Agreements in requests filed on
June 21, 2004, for proposed Negotiated
Service Agreements with Discover
Financial Services, Inc. and Bank One
Corporation4.
The rules applicable to new baseline
Negotiated Service Agreements remain
untested as the Postal Service has not
submitted a request for a new baseline
agreement.
This notice and order represents the
initiation of a third rulemaking to
address rules applicable to: (1) Postal
Service requests to extend the duration
of previously recommended and
currently in effect Negotiated Service
Agreements, and (2) Postal Service
requests to make modifications to
previously recommended and currently
in effect Negotiated Service Agreements.
Both sets of rules assume that the
previously recommended and currently
in effect Negotiated Service Agreements
were fully litigated in previous dockets
where all outstanding issues have been
resolved. The rules also assume that the
modifications being proposed in the
new requests are non-controversial, and
do not materially alter the nature of the
existing agreements. These are
necessary assumptions if the
Commission is to provide expedited
review and rapid action in issuing
recommendations on such requests. The
proposed rules, appearing below the
Secretary’s signature to this notice and
order, are discussed below.
Proposed 39 CFR 3001.197 requests to
renew previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements with
existing participant(s). Subsection (a)
establishes that rule 197 is applicable to
requests to extend the duration of a
previously recommended and currently
in effect Negotiated Service Agreement
(the existing agreement). The intent is to
limit use of the rule to instances where
the proposed agreement and the existing
Negotiated Service Agreements with existing
participant(s), and at 39 CFR 3001.198 for requests
to modify previously recommended Negotiated
Service Agreements.
4 Request of the United States Postal Service for
a Recommended Decision on Classifications, Rates
and Fees to Implement Functionally Equivalent
Negotiated Service Agreement with Discover
Financial Services, Inc., June 21, 2004; Request of
the United States Postal Service for a
Recommended Decision on Classifications, Rates
and Fees to Implement Functionally Equivalent
Negotiated Service Agreement with Bank One
Corporation, June 21, 2004.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:39 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
agreement share substantially identical
obligations. This restriction is necessary
to limit the issues open to litigation, and
to otherwise expedite the proceeding as
much as possible. In instances where
there are no contested issues it should
be possible for the Commission to issue
its recommendation shortly after the
prehearing conference.
Rule 197 allows for three instances
where modifications to the terms and
conditions (including modifications to
the Domestic Mail Classification
Schedule) may be appropriate: (1)
Correcting a technical defect, (2)
updating the schedule of rates and fees,
and (3) accounting for an intervening
event since the recommendation of the
existing agreement. The rule notes that
the above modifications should not
materially alter the nature of the
existing agreement. This notation serves
as a reminder of the limited
applicability of rule 197, and that
modifications of any substance may not
allow for expedited review, or in the
more extreme case may cause the
request to be considered de novo. This
rule is inapplicable when material
features are proposed to be significantly
modified, added, or removed from the
existing agreement.
The exceptions are provided
predominately to allow for correction of
errors or to update the terms and
conditions to the current situation when
the existing agreement is renewed. The
correction of technical defects, for
example, allows for correction of
scrivener’s errors, and to correct for
errors in description. An example of an
error in description could be an instance
of where the parties to the contract, the
Commission, and the participants in the
original docket understood the intent of
a term or condition, but what was
actually described in the documentation
was technically not correct. Thus, the
exception would allow the
documentation to be corrected or
clarified.
Updating the schedule of rates and
fees refers to updating the schedule of
rates and fees to reflect the current
conditions at the time the Negotiated
Service Agreement is extended. It does
not refer to a wholesale revamping of
the schedule of rates and fees to
accommodate new or remove existing
incentives, or which change the
underlying nature of the existing
agreement.
Accounting for intervening events
since the recommendation of the
existing agreement refers to an internal
or an external event, typically
unanticipated or unforeseen, that has
occurred since recommendation of the
agreement and that has an impact on
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7705
some aspect of the agreement. For
example, a merger, a change in the
nature of a provided postal service, or
an external economic occurrence that
forces a change in business plans could
be intervening events. It is important to
stress that the more significant the event
and the associated modification
required, the less applicable rule 197
becomes and the more likely that the
request would have to be considered de
novo.
Subsections (a)(1) through (7)
highlight particular areas of interest to
the Commission in reviewing requests
to renew existing agreements.
Supplemental testimony might be
required to fully comply with these
subsections.
Subsection (a)(1) requires
identification of the record testimony
from the existing agreement docket, or
any other previously concluded docket,
on which the Postal Service proposes to
rely. The identified record testimony
will form the basis of the record of the
instant request, with supplemental
testimony completing the record where
necessary.
Subsection (a)(2) focuses on the
modifications that are being proposed to
be made to the agreement, which
includes the terms and conditions of the
actual contract and the contents of the
Domestic Mail Classification Schedule
as previously recommended by the
Commission and approved by the
Governors of the United States Postal
Service. It requires a ‘‘from to’’
description of all proposed
modifications to the agreement’s
documentation.
Subsection (a)(3) requires an
explanation or reason for the
modifications that are being proposed to
be made to the agreement. It focuses on
describing the technical defect, rationale
for revising the schedule of rates and
fees, or intervening event, if any, that
has necessitated a proposed
modification.
Subsection (a)(4) requires the Postal
Service to provide all studies pertinent
to the request which have been
completed since the recommendation of
the existing agreement. These studies
are likely to be probative of the level of
success of the existing agreement or
they might shed light on the proposals
being made in the request.
Subsection (a)(5) requires a financial
analysis applicable to the existing
agreement comparing actual
performance with predicted
performance. Because the request for
extending the duration must occur
before the actual termination date of the
existing agreement, an allowance is
made for a final projection based on
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
7706
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
actual data. Except for the final
projection, all of the data required to
comply with this subsection previously
should have been collected as required
by the existing agreement’s data
collection plan.5 The intent of this
subsection is to facilitate the
continuation of beneficial agreements.
Subsection (a)(6) requires a financial
analysis to be performed over the
duration of the extended agreement. The
analysis is to be performed utilizing the
methodology employed by the
Commission in its recommendation of
the existing agreement. Utilizing the
Commission’s methodology to the
maximum extent possible should avoid
the need to re-examine and possibly
relitigate methodology-related issues,
which should result in an expedited
proceeding. The financial analysis will
weigh heavily in the Commission’s
recommendation.
Subsection (a)(7) requires the Postal
Service to identify circumstances that
are unique to the request. This is a
catch-all provision where the
proponents can provide the Commission
with additional information pertinent to
the Commission’s analysis. For
example, any change in a service,
change in a mailer’s business plans, or
change in the interaction between the
mailer and the Postal Service since the
initial recommendation that potentially
bears on the Commission’s
recommendation should be discussed.
Subsection (b) requires the Postal
Service to provide written notice of its
request to certain participants who are
assumed to be those potentially
interested in the proceeding. This is in
addition to the public notice that will
result from filing the request. The
requirement balances the Commission’s
intent to limit the time period for
intervention which will help expedite
consideration of requests under this
rule, and the requirement for interested
participants to be adequately notified of
a pending proceeding.
Subsection (c) establishes that a
prehearing conference will be scheduled
for each request. At the time of the
prehearing conference, participants
shall be prepared to address whether or
not it is appropriate to proceed under
the rules for renewing existing
agreements, and whether or not there
are any material issues of fact that
require discovery or evidentiary
hearings. The Commission will
promptly determine, on the basis of
materials submitted with the request
and argument presented at or before the
prehearing conference, whether or not it
5 Required by 39 CFR 3001.193(g), as of requests
filed after February 11, 2004.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:39 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
is appropriate to proceed under these
rules and what direction the proceeding
should follow. If it is determined that it
is not appropriate to proceed under 39
CFR 3001.197, the Commission shall
proceed under 39 CFR 3001.195. After
experience is gained operating under
rule 197(c), and the review of
Negotiated Service Agreements becomes
routine, the Commission will entertain
proposals to further streamline the early
phases of the proceeding.
Proposed 39 CFR 3001.198 requests to
modify previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements.
Subsection (a) establishes that rule 198
is applicable to requests to modify a
previously recommended and currently
in effect Negotiated Service Agreement
(the existing agreement). The intent of
the rule is to expedite proceedings
where limited modifications are being
proposed that do not materially alter the
nature of the agreement. The rule limits
modifications to those: (1) Correcting a
technical defect, (2) accounting for
unforeseen circumstances not apparent
when the existing agreement was first
recommended, and (3) accounting for an
intervening event since the
recommendation of the existing
agreement. The allowed modifications
are not meant to include instances
where a material feature is proposed to
be significantly modified, added, or
removed from the existing agreement.
Restricting the allowable types of
modifications is necessary to limit the
issues open to litigation, and to
otherwise expedite the proceeding as
much as possible. The proceeding
should take considerably less time to
review, depending upon the extent of
the modifications, than having to review
the entire agreement de novo.
The correction of technical defects
and accounting for intervening events
since the recommendation of the
existing agreement were discussed
above in proposed rule 197. Accounting
for unforeseen circumstances not
apparent when the existing agreement
was recommended is intended to allow
for modifications to be made after some
experience has been gained operating
under the agreement. For example, it
might not be initially recognized that
there is a more advantageous method of
performing a specific function under the
agreement. In such an instance, it might
be appropriate to modify the agreement
to reflect utilization of the more
advantageous method.
Subsections (a)(1) through (6)
highlights particular areas of interest to
the Commission in reviewing requests
to modify existing agreements.
Supplemental testimony might be
required to fully comply with these
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subsections. Subsection (a)(1) requires
identification of the record testimony
from the existing agreement docket, or
any other previously concluded docket,
on which the Postal Service proposes to
rely. The identified record testimony
will form the basis of the record of the
instant request, with supplemental
testimony completing the record where
necessary.
Subsection (a)(2) focuses on the
modifications that are being proposed to
be made to the agreement, which
includes the terms and conditions of the
actual contract and the contents of the
Domestic Mail Classification Schedule
as previously recommended by the
Commission and approved by the
Governors of the United States Postal
Service. It requires a ‘‘from to’’
description of all proposed
modifications to the agreement’s
documentation.
Subsection (a)(3) requires an
explanation or reason for the
modifications that are being proposed to
be made to the agreement. It focuses on
describing the technical defect,
unforeseen circumstance, or intervening
event that has necessitated the proposed
modification.
Subsection (a)(4) requires the Postal
Service to provide all studies pertinent
to the request which have been
completed since the recommendation of
the existing agreement. These studies
are likely to be probative of the level of
success of the existing agreement or
they might shed light on the proposals
being made in the request.
Subsection (a)(5) requires a financial
analysis to be performed over the
duration of the extended agreement. It
should be performed only if the
proposed modification has an effect
upon the financial analysis in the
opinion recommending the existing
agreement. The analysis is to be
performed utilizing the methodology
employed by the Commission in its
recommendation of the existing
agreement. Utilizing the Commission’s
methodology, to the maximum extent
possible, will avoid the need to
reexamine and possibly relitigate
methodology-related issues, which
should result in an expedited
proceeding.
Subsection (a)(6) requires the Postal
Service to identify circumstances that
are unique to the request. This is a
catch-all provision where the
proponents can provide the Commission
with additional information pertinent to
the Commission’s analysis. For
example, any change in a service,
change in a mailer’s business plans, or
change in the interaction between the
mailer and the Postal Service since the
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
initial recommendation that potentially
bears on the Commission’s
recommendation should be discussed.
Subsections (b) and (c) parallel the
notice and prehearing conference
requirements discussed above for 39
CFR 3001.197(b) and (c).
Comments. By this order, the
Commission hereby gives notice that
comments from interested persons
concerning the proposed amendments
to the Commission’s Rules are due on or
before March 14, 2005. Reply comments
may also be filed and are due April 11,
2005.
Representation of the general public.
In conformance with 39 CFR 3624(a) of
title 39, U.S. Code, the Commission
designates Shelley S. Dreifuss, director
of the Commission’s Office of the
Consumer Advocate, to represent the
interests of the general public in this
proceeding. Pursuant to this
designation, Ms. Dreifuss will direct the
activities of Commission personnel
assigned to assist her and, upon request,
will supply their names for the record.
Neither Ms. Dreifuss nor any of the
assigned personnel will participate in or
provide advice on any Commission
decision in this proceeding.
Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. Docket No. RM2005–3 is
established to consider Commission
rules applicable to Postal Service
proposals to extend the duration of, or
make modifications to, previously
recommended and currently in effect
Negotiated Service Agreements.
2. Interested persons may submit
comments no later than March 14, 2005.
3. Reply comments also may be filed
and are due April 11, 2005.
4. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the
Office of the Consumer Advocate, is
designated to represent the interests of
the general public in this docket.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Issued: February 10, 2005.
By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3001
Administrative Practice and
Procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed above, the
Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR
part 3001 as follows:
PART 3001—RULES OF PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 3001
continues to read as follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:39 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b); 3603; 3622–
24; 3661, 3662, 3663.
2. Amend § 3001.197 as follows:
a. Revise the heading of section
3001.197 to read as follows: Requests to
renew previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements with
existing participant(s).
b. Add new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)
to read as follows:
Subpart L—Rules Applicable to
Negotiated Service Agreements
§ 3001.197 Requests to renew previously
recommended Negotiated Service
Agreements with existing participant(s).
(a) This section governs Postal Service
requests for a recommended decision
seeking to extend the duration of a
previously recommended and currently
in effect Negotiated Service Agreement
(existing agreement). The purpose of
this section is to establish procedures
that provide for accelerated review of
Postal Service requests to extend the
duration of an existing agreement under
substantially identical obligations. In
addition to extending the duration of
the existing agreement, modifications
may be entertained that do not
materially alter the nature of the
existing agreement for the purposes of:
correcting a technical defect, updating
the schedule of rates and fees, or
accounting for an intervening event
since the recommendation of the
existing agreement. The Postal Service
request shall include:
(1) Identification of the record
testimony from the existing agreement
docket, or any other previously
concluded docket, on which the Postal
Service proposes to rely, including
citation to the locations of such
testimony;
(2) A detailed description of all
proposed modifications to the existing
agreement;
(3) A detailed description of any
technical defect, rationale for revising
the schedule of rates and fees, or
intervening event since the
recommendation of the existing
agreement, to substantiate the
modifications proposed in (a)(2) of this
section;
(4) All studies developing information
pertinent to the request completed since
the recommendation of the existing
agreement;
(5) A comparison of the analysis
presented in § 3001.193(e)(1)(ii) and
§ 3001.193(e)(2)(iii) applicable to the
existing agreement with the actual
results ascertained from implementation
of the existing agreement, together with
the most recent available projections for
the remaining portion of the existing
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7707
agreement, compared on an annual or
more frequent basis;
(6) The financial impact of the
proposed Negotiated Service Agreement
on the Postal Service in accordance with
§ 3001.193(e) over the extended
duration of the agreement utilizing the
methodology employed by the
Commission in its recommendation of
the existing agreement; and
(7) If applicable, the identification of
circumstances unique to the request.
(b) When the Postal Service submits a
request to renew a Negotiated Service
Agreement, it shall provide written
notice of its request, either by hand
delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all
participants in the Commission docket
established to consider the original
agreement.
(c) The Commission will schedule a
pre-hearing conference for each request.
Participants shall be prepared to address
at that time whether or not it is
appropriate to proceed under
§ 3001.197, and whether or not any
material issues of fact exist that require
discovery or evidentiary hearings. After
consideration of the material presented
in support of the request, and the
argument presented by the participants,
if any, the Commission shall promptly
issue a decision on whether or not to
proceed under § 3001.197. If the
Commission’s decision is to not proceed
under § 3001.197, the docket will
proceed under § 3001.195.
3. Amend § 3001.198 as follows:
a. Revise the heading of section
3001.198 to read as follows: Requests to
modify previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements.
b. Add new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)
to read as follows:
§ 3001.198 Requests to modify previously
recommended Negotiated Service
Agreements.
(a) This section governs Postal Service
requests for a recommended decision
seeking a modification to a previously
recommended and currently in effect
Negotiated Service Agreement (existing
agreement). The purpose of this section
is to establish procedures that provide
for accelerated review of Postal Service
requests to modify an existing
agreement where the modification is
necessary to correct a technical defect,
to account for unforeseen circumstances
not apparent when the existing
agreement was first recommended, or to
account for an intervening event since
the recommendation of the existing
agreement. This section is not
applicable to requests to extend the
duration of a Negotiated Service
Agreement. The Postal Service request
shall include:
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
7708
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(1) Identification of the record
testimony from the existing agreement
docket, or any other previously
concluded docket, on which the Postal
Service proposes to rely, including
citation to the locations of such
testimony;
(2) A detailed description of all
proposed modifications to the existing
agreement;
(3) A detailed description of the
technical defect, unforeseen
circumstance, or intervening event, to
substantiate the modifications proposed
in (a)(2) of this section;
(4) All studies developing information
pertinent to the request completed since
the recommendation of the existing
agreement;
(5) If applicable, an update of the
financial impact of the Negotiated
Service Agreement on the Postal Service
in accordance with § 3001.193(e) over
the duration of the agreement utilizing
the methodology employed by the
Commission in its recommendation of
the existing agreement; and
(6) If applicable, the identification of
circumstances unique to the request.
(b) When the Postal Service submits a
request to modify a Negotiated Service
Agreement, it shall provide written
notice of its request, either by hand
delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all
participants in the Commission Docket
established to consider the original
agreement.
(c) The Commission will schedule a
pre-hearing conference for each request.
Participants shall be prepared to address
at that time whether or not it is
appropriate to proceed under
§ 3001.198, and whether or not any
material issues of fact exist that require
discovery or evidentiary hearings. After
consideration of the material presented
in support of the request, and the
argument presented by the participants,
if any, the Commission shall promptly
issue a decision on whether or not to
proceed under § 3001.198. If the
Commission’s decision is to not proceed
under § 3001.198, the docket will
proceed under § 3001.195.
[FR Doc. 05–2883 Filed 2–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:39 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL–7872–1]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the
Syosset Landfill Superfund Site from
the National Priorities List.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 2 Office,
announces its intent to delete the
Syosset Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comment on this
action.
The Syosset Landfill Superfund Site
is located in the Town of Oyster Bay,
Nassau County, New York. The NPL is
appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part
300, which EPA promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended. EPA and New
York State, through the Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions have been completed
and no further response actions are
required. In addition, EPA and the
NYSDEC have determined that the Site
poses no significant threat to public
health or the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning this
proposed action, deletion of a site from
the NPL, must be received by March 17,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to: Sherrel D. Henry,
Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,
New York, New York 10007–1866.
Information Repositories:
Comprehensive information on the Site
is available for viewing and copying by
appointment only at the Site
information repository located at: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York,
New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4308.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m.
through 5 p.m.
Information for the Site is also
available for viewing at the Site
Administrative Record Repositories
located at: Syosset Public Library, 225
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
South Oyster Bay Road, Syosset, New
York 11791, Tel. (516) 921–7161.
Hours: Monday through Thursday: 9
a.m. through 9 p.m., Friday: 10 a.m.
through 9 p.m., Saturday: 9 a.m. through
5 p.m. and Sunday: 12 noon through 5
p.m., and Oyster Bay Town Hall, 54
Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, New York
11771, Tel. (516) 624–6100.
Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Henry at the address provided above, by
telephone at (212) 637–4273, by
electronic mail at
Henry.Sherrel@epa.gov, or by FAX at
(212) 637–3966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
EPA, Region 2, announces its intent to
delete the Syosset Landfill Superfund
Site (Site) from the NPL. EPA maintains
the NPL as the list of sites that appear
to present a significant risk to public
health or the environment. Sites on the
NPL may be the subject of remedial
actions financed by the Hazardous
Substances Superfund Response Trust
Fund (Fund). As described in
§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted
from the NPL remains eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions, if conditions
at the site warrant such action.
EPA will accept comments
concerning the deletion of the Site from
the NPL for thirty (30) days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
Section II explains the criteria for
deleting sites from the NPL. Section III
discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV
discusses how the Site meets the NPL
deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425 (e) of the NCP
provides that sites may be deleted from
the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making this
determination, EPA, in consultation
with the State, will consider whether
any of the following criteria have been
met:
(i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
or,
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed
responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response
action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or,
E:\FR\FM\15FEP1.SGM
15FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7704-7708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2883]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3001
[Docket No. RM2005-3; Order No. 1430]
Negotiated Service Agreements
AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document initiates the third in a series of rulemakings
on procedures related to Negotiated Service Agreements. This proposal
addresses rules applicable to Postal Service requests to extend or
modify previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreements that are
currently in effect. The changes, if adopted, will assist in clarifying
the type of requests that qualify as extensions and the type of
conditions that constitute modifications.
DATES: Initial comments: March 14, 2005; reply comments: April 11,
2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing
Online system at https://www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel,
at 202-789-6818.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
68 FR 52552, September 4, 2003.
69 FR 7574, February 18, 2004.
70 FR 4802, January 31, 2005.
In Opinion and Recommended Decision, Docket No. MC2002-2 (Opinion),
the Commission made a commitment to initiate a series of rulemakings
designed to facilitate consideration of Postal Service requests based
on Negotiated Service Agreements.\1\ See, Opinion paras. 1006, 2007,
4026, 4041-2, 7026, and 8023. The first rulemaking, docketed as RM2003-
5, developed rules for baseline and for functionally equivalent
Negotiated Service Agreements.\2\ It also established the
organizational framework for the complete set of Commission rules
applicable to requests based on Negotiated Service Agreements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Docket No. MC2002-2, Experimental Rate and Service Changes
to Implement Negotiated Service Agreement with Capital One Services,
Inc., was the first docket in which the Commission considered and
recommended a Postal Service request predicated on a Negotiated
Service Agreement.
\2\ PRC Order No. 1391 established the rules applicable to
baseline and functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreements.
The rules are incorporated into the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure at Subpart L. 39 CFR 3001.190 et seq.
\3\ Space was reserved at 39 CFR 3001.197 for requests to renew
previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreements with existing
participant(s), and at 39 CFR 3001.198 for requests to modify
previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7705]]
A second rulemaking, docketed as RM2005-2, has been initiated to
explore whether improvements can be made to the previously issued rules
applicable to functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreements.
The Postal Service first invoked the rules applicable to functionally
equivalent Negotiated Service Agreements in requests filed on June 21,
2004, for proposed Negotiated Service Agreements with Discover
Financial Services, Inc. and Bank One Corporation\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Request of the United States Postal Service for a
Recommended Decision on Classifications, Rates and Fees to Implement
Functionally Equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement with Discover
Financial Services, Inc., June 21, 2004; Request of the United
States Postal Service for a Recommended Decision on Classifications,
Rates and Fees to Implement Functionally Equivalent Negotiated
Service Agreement with Bank One Corporation, June 21, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules applicable to new baseline Negotiated Service Agreements
remain untested as the Postal Service has not submitted a request for a
new baseline agreement.
This notice and order represents the initiation of a third
rulemaking to address rules applicable to: (1) Postal Service requests
to extend the duration of previously recommended and currently in
effect Negotiated Service Agreements, and (2) Postal Service requests
to make modifications to previously recommended and currently in effect
Negotiated Service Agreements. Both sets of rules assume that the
previously recommended and currently in effect Negotiated Service
Agreements were fully litigated in previous dockets where all
outstanding issues have been resolved. The rules also assume that the
modifications being proposed in the new requests are non-controversial,
and do not materially alter the nature of the existing agreements.
These are necessary assumptions if the Commission is to provide
expedited review and rapid action in issuing recommendations on such
requests. The proposed rules, appearing below the Secretary's signature
to this notice and order, are discussed below.
Proposed 39 CFR 3001.197 requests to renew previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements with existing participant(s). Subsection
(a) establishes that rule 197 is applicable to requests to extend the
duration of a previously recommended and currently in effect Negotiated
Service Agreement (the existing agreement). The intent is to limit use
of the rule to instances where the proposed agreement and the existing
agreement share substantially identical obligations. This restriction
is necessary to limit the issues open to litigation, and to otherwise
expedite the proceeding as much as possible. In instances where there
are no contested issues it should be possible for the Commission to
issue its recommendation shortly after the prehearing conference.
Rule 197 allows for three instances where modifications to the
terms and conditions (including modifications to the Domestic Mail
Classification Schedule) may be appropriate: (1) Correcting a technical
defect, (2) updating the schedule of rates and fees, and (3) accounting
for an intervening event since the recommendation of the existing
agreement. The rule notes that the above modifications should not
materially alter the nature of the existing agreement. This notation
serves as a reminder of the limited applicability of rule 197, and that
modifications of any substance may not allow for expedited review, or
in the more extreme case may cause the request to be considered de
novo. This rule is inapplicable when material features are proposed to
be significantly modified, added, or removed from the existing
agreement.
The exceptions are provided predominately to allow for correction
of errors or to update the terms and conditions to the current
situation when the existing agreement is renewed. The correction of
technical defects, for example, allows for correction of scrivener's
errors, and to correct for errors in description. An example of an
error in description could be an instance of where the parties to the
contract, the Commission, and the participants in the original docket
understood the intent of a term or condition, but what was actually
described in the documentation was technically not correct. Thus, the
exception would allow the documentation to be corrected or clarified.
Updating the schedule of rates and fees refers to updating the
schedule of rates and fees to reflect the current conditions at the
time the Negotiated Service Agreement is extended. It does not refer to
a wholesale revamping of the schedule of rates and fees to accommodate
new or remove existing incentives, or which change the underlying
nature of the existing agreement.
Accounting for intervening events since the recommendation of the
existing agreement refers to an internal or an external event,
typically unanticipated or unforeseen, that has occurred since
recommendation of the agreement and that has an impact on some aspect
of the agreement. For example, a merger, a change in the nature of a
provided postal service, or an external economic occurrence that forces
a change in business plans could be intervening events. It is important
to stress that the more significant the event and the associated
modification required, the less applicable rule 197 becomes and the
more likely that the request would have to be considered de novo.
Subsections (a)(1) through (7) highlight particular areas of
interest to the Commission in reviewing requests to renew existing
agreements. Supplemental testimony might be required to fully comply
with these subsections.
Subsection (a)(1) requires identification of the record testimony
from the existing agreement docket, or any other previously concluded
docket, on which the Postal Service proposes to rely. The identified
record testimony will form the basis of the record of the instant
request, with supplemental testimony completing the record where
necessary.
Subsection (a)(2) focuses on the modifications that are being
proposed to be made to the agreement, which includes the terms and
conditions of the actual contract and the contents of the Domestic Mail
Classification Schedule as previously recommended by the Commission and
approved by the Governors of the United States Postal Service. It
requires a ``from to'' description of all proposed modifications to the
agreement's documentation.
Subsection (a)(3) requires an explanation or reason for the
modifications that are being proposed to be made to the agreement. It
focuses on describing the technical defect, rationale for revising the
schedule of rates and fees, or intervening event, if any, that has
necessitated a proposed modification.
Subsection (a)(4) requires the Postal Service to provide all
studies pertinent to the request which have been completed since the
recommendation of the existing agreement. These studies are likely to
be probative of the level of success of the existing agreement or they
might shed light on the proposals being made in the request.
Subsection (a)(5) requires a financial analysis applicable to the
existing agreement comparing actual performance with predicted
performance. Because the request for extending the duration must occur
before the actual termination date of the existing agreement, an
allowance is made for a final projection based on
[[Page 7706]]
actual data. Except for the final projection, all of the data required
to comply with this subsection previously should have been collected as
required by the existing agreement's data collection plan.\5\ The
intent of this subsection is to facilitate the continuation of
beneficial agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Required by 39 CFR 3001.193(g), as of requests filed after
February 11, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsection (a)(6) requires a financial analysis to be performed
over the duration of the extended agreement. The analysis is to be
performed utilizing the methodology employed by the Commission in its
recommendation of the existing agreement. Utilizing the Commission's
methodology to the maximum extent possible should avoid the need to re-
examine and possibly relitigate methodology-related issues, which
should result in an expedited proceeding. The financial analysis will
weigh heavily in the Commission's recommendation.
Subsection (a)(7) requires the Postal Service to identify
circumstances that are unique to the request. This is a catch-all
provision where the proponents can provide the Commission with
additional information pertinent to the Commission's analysis. For
example, any change in a service, change in a mailer's business plans,
or change in the interaction between the mailer and the Postal Service
since the initial recommendation that potentially bears on the
Commission's recommendation should be discussed.
Subsection (b) requires the Postal Service to provide written
notice of its request to certain participants who are assumed to be
those potentially interested in the proceeding. This is in addition to
the public notice that will result from filing the request. The
requirement balances the Commission's intent to limit the time period
for intervention which will help expedite consideration of requests
under this rule, and the requirement for interested participants to be
adequately notified of a pending proceeding.
Subsection (c) establishes that a prehearing conference will be
scheduled for each request. At the time of the prehearing conference,
participants shall be prepared to address whether or not it is
appropriate to proceed under the rules for renewing existing
agreements, and whether or not there are any material issues of fact
that require discovery or evidentiary hearings. The Commission will
promptly determine, on the basis of materials submitted with the
request and argument presented at or before the prehearing conference,
whether or not it is appropriate to proceed under these rules and what
direction the proceeding should follow. If it is determined that it is
not appropriate to proceed under 39 CFR 3001.197, the Commission shall
proceed under 39 CFR 3001.195. After experience is gained operating
under rule 197(c), and the review of Negotiated Service Agreements
becomes routine, the Commission will entertain proposals to further
streamline the early phases of the proceeding.
Proposed 39 CFR 3001.198 requests to modify previously recommended
Negotiated Service Agreements. Subsection (a) establishes that rule 198
is applicable to requests to modify a previously recommended and
currently in effect Negotiated Service Agreement (the existing
agreement). The intent of the rule is to expedite proceedings where
limited modifications are being proposed that do not materially alter
the nature of the agreement. The rule limits modifications to those:
(1) Correcting a technical defect, (2) accounting for unforeseen
circumstances not apparent when the existing agreement was first
recommended, and (3) accounting for an intervening event since the
recommendation of the existing agreement. The allowed modifications are
not meant to include instances where a material feature is proposed to
be significantly modified, added, or removed from the existing
agreement. Restricting the allowable types of modifications is
necessary to limit the issues open to litigation, and to otherwise
expedite the proceeding as much as possible. The proceeding should take
considerably less time to review, depending upon the extent of the
modifications, than having to review the entire agreement de novo.
The correction of technical defects and accounting for intervening
events since the recommendation of the existing agreement were
discussed above in proposed rule 197. Accounting for unforeseen
circumstances not apparent when the existing agreement was recommended
is intended to allow for modifications to be made after some experience
has been gained operating under the agreement. For example, it might
not be initially recognized that there is a more advantageous method of
performing a specific function under the agreement. In such an
instance, it might be appropriate to modify the agreement to reflect
utilization of the more advantageous method.
Subsections (a)(1) through (6) highlights particular areas of
interest to the Commission in reviewing requests to modify existing
agreements. Supplemental testimony might be required to fully comply
with these subsections. Subsection (a)(1) requires identification of
the record testimony from the existing agreement docket, or any other
previously concluded docket, on which the Postal Service proposes to
rely. The identified record testimony will form the basis of the record
of the instant request, with supplemental testimony completing the
record where necessary.
Subsection (a)(2) focuses on the modifications that are being
proposed to be made to the agreement, which includes the terms and
conditions of the actual contract and the contents of the Domestic Mail
Classification Schedule as previously recommended by the Commission and
approved by the Governors of the United States Postal Service. It
requires a ``from to'' description of all proposed modifications to the
agreement's documentation.
Subsection (a)(3) requires an explanation or reason for the
modifications that are being proposed to be made to the agreement. It
focuses on describing the technical defect, unforeseen circumstance, or
intervening event that has necessitated the proposed modification.
Subsection (a)(4) requires the Postal Service to provide all
studies pertinent to the request which have been completed since the
recommendation of the existing agreement. These studies are likely to
be probative of the level of success of the existing agreement or they
might shed light on the proposals being made in the request.
Subsection (a)(5) requires a financial analysis to be performed
over the duration of the extended agreement. It should be performed
only if the proposed modification has an effect upon the financial
analysis in the opinion recommending the existing agreement. The
analysis is to be performed utilizing the methodology employed by the
Commission in its recommendation of the existing agreement. Utilizing
the Commission's methodology, to the maximum extent possible, will
avoid the need to reexamine and possibly relitigate methodology-related
issues, which should result in an expedited proceeding.
Subsection (a)(6) requires the Postal Service to identify
circumstances that are unique to the request. This is a catch-all
provision where the proponents can provide the Commission with
additional information pertinent to the Commission's analysis. For
example, any change in a service, change in a mailer's business plans,
or change in the interaction between the mailer and the Postal Service
since the
[[Page 7707]]
initial recommendation that potentially bears on the Commission's
recommendation should be discussed.
Subsections (b) and (c) parallel the notice and prehearing
conference requirements discussed above for 39 CFR 3001.197(b) and (c).
Comments. By this order, the Commission hereby gives notice that
comments from interested persons concerning the proposed amendments to
the Commission's Rules are due on or before March 14, 2005. Reply
comments may also be filed and are due April 11, 2005.
Representation of the general public. In conformance with 39 CFR
3624(a) of title 39, U.S. Code, the Commission designates Shelley S.
Dreifuss, director of the Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate,
to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
Pursuant to this designation, Ms. Dreifuss will direct the activities
of Commission personnel assigned to assist her and, upon request, will
supply their names for the record. Neither Ms. Dreifuss nor any of the
assigned personnel will participate in or provide advice on any
Commission decision in this proceeding.
Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. Docket No. RM2005-3 is established to consider Commission rules
applicable to Postal Service proposals to extend the duration of, or
make modifications to, previously recommended and currently in effect
Negotiated Service Agreements.
2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than March 14,
2005.
3. Reply comments also may be filed and are due April 11, 2005.
4. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the Office of the Consumer
Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general
public in this docket.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
Issued: February 10, 2005.
By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3001
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to amend
39 CFR part 3001 as follows:
PART 3001--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 3001 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b); 3603; 3622-24; 3661, 3662, 3663.
2. Amend Sec. 3001.197 as follows:
a. Revise the heading of section 3001.197 to read as follows:
Requests to renew previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreements
with existing participant(s).
b. Add new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Subpart L--Rules Applicable to Negotiated Service Agreements
Sec. 3001.197 Requests to renew previously recommended Negotiated
Service Agreements with existing participant(s).
(a) This section governs Postal Service requests for a recommended
decision seeking to extend the duration of a previously recommended and
currently in effect Negotiated Service Agreement (existing agreement).
The purpose of this section is to establish procedures that provide for
accelerated review of Postal Service requests to extend the duration of
an existing agreement under substantially identical obligations. In
addition to extending the duration of the existing agreement,
modifications may be entertained that do not materially alter the
nature of the existing agreement for the purposes of: correcting a
technical defect, updating the schedule of rates and fees, or
accounting for an intervening event since the recommendation of the
existing agreement. The Postal Service request shall include:
(1) Identification of the record testimony from the existing
agreement docket, or any other previously concluded docket, on which
the Postal Service proposes to rely, including citation to the
locations of such testimony;
(2) A detailed description of all proposed modifications to the
existing agreement;
(3) A detailed description of any technical defect, rationale for
revising the schedule of rates and fees, or intervening event since the
recommendation of the existing agreement, to substantiate the
modifications proposed in (a)(2) of this section;
(4) All studies developing information pertinent to the request
completed since the recommendation of the existing agreement;
(5) A comparison of the analysis presented in Sec.
3001.193(e)(1)(ii) and Sec. 3001.193(e)(2)(iii) applicable to the
existing agreement with the actual results ascertained from
implementation of the existing agreement, together with the most recent
available projections for the remaining portion of the existing
agreement, compared on an annual or more frequent basis;
(6) The financial impact of the proposed Negotiated Service
Agreement on the Postal Service in accordance with Sec. 3001.193(e)
over the extended duration of the agreement utilizing the methodology
employed by the Commission in its recommendation of the existing
agreement; and
(7) If applicable, the identification of circumstances unique to
the request.
(b) When the Postal Service submits a request to renew a Negotiated
Service Agreement, it shall provide written notice of its request,
either by hand delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all participants in
the Commission docket established to consider the original agreement.
(c) The Commission will schedule a pre-hearing conference for each
request. Participants shall be prepared to address at that time whether
or not it is appropriate to proceed under Sec. 3001.197, and whether
or not any material issues of fact exist that require discovery or
evidentiary hearings. After consideration of the material presented in
support of the request, and the argument presented by the participants,
if any, the Commission shall promptly issue a decision on whether or
not to proceed under Sec. 3001.197. If the Commission's decision is to
not proceed under Sec. 3001.197, the docket will proceed under Sec.
3001.195.
3. Amend Sec. 3001.198 as follows:
a. Revise the heading of section 3001.198 to read as follows:
Requests to modify previously recommended Negotiated Service
Agreements.
b. Add new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3001.198 Requests to modify previously recommended Negotiated
Service Agreements.
(a) This section governs Postal Service requests for a recommended
decision seeking a modification to a previously recommended and
currently in effect Negotiated Service Agreement (existing agreement).
The purpose of this section is to establish procedures that provide for
accelerated review of Postal Service requests to modify an existing
agreement where the modification is necessary to correct a technical
defect, to account for unforeseen circumstances not apparent when the
existing agreement was first recommended, or to account for an
intervening event since the recommendation of the existing agreement.
This section is not applicable to requests to extend the duration of a
Negotiated Service Agreement. The Postal Service request shall include:
[[Page 7708]]
(1) Identification of the record testimony from the existing
agreement docket, or any other previously concluded docket, on which
the Postal Service proposes to rely, including citation to the
locations of such testimony;
(2) A detailed description of all proposed modifications to the
existing agreement;
(3) A detailed description of the technical defect, unforeseen
circumstance, or intervening event, to substantiate the modifications
proposed in (a)(2) of this section;
(4) All studies developing information pertinent to the request
completed since the recommendation of the existing agreement;
(5) If applicable, an update of the financial impact of the
Negotiated Service Agreement on the Postal Service in accordance with
Sec. 3001.193(e) over the duration of the agreement utilizing the
methodology employed by the Commission in its recommendation of the
existing agreement; and
(6) If applicable, the identification of circumstances unique to
the request.
(b) When the Postal Service submits a request to modify a
Negotiated Service Agreement, it shall provide written notice of its
request, either by hand delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all
participants in the Commission Docket established to consider the
original agreement.
(c) The Commission will schedule a pre-hearing conference for each
request. Participants shall be prepared to address at that time whether
or not it is appropriate to proceed under Sec. 3001.198, and whether
or not any material issues of fact exist that require discovery or
evidentiary hearings. After consideration of the material presented in
support of the request, and the argument presented by the participants,
if any, the Commission shall promptly issue a decision on whether or
not to proceed under Sec. 3001.198. If the Commission's decision is to
not proceed under Sec. 3001.198, the docket will proceed under Sec.
3001.195.
[FR Doc. 05-2883 Filed 2-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
