80 FR 50815 - Periodic Reporting

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 162 (August 21, 2015)

Page Range		50815-50816
FR Document		2015-20633

The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Ten). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50815-50816]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20633]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

39 CFR part 3050

[Docket No. RM2015-19; Order No. 2666]

Periodic Reporting

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing
requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking
proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to
periodic reports (Proposal Ten). This notice informs the public of the
filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

DATES: Comments are due: September 17, 2015. Reply Comments are due:
September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing
Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments
electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202-789-6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Proposal Ten
III. Initial Commission Action
IV. Ordering Paragraphs

I. Introduction

On August 12, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to
39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal
rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes in analytical
principles relating to periodic reports.\1\ Proposal Ten is attached to
the Petition and proposes an analytical method change related to the
proposed merger of Cost Segments 3 and 4 for purposes of constructing
the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) Report. Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in
Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), August 12, 2015 (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposal Ten

A. Background

As background, the Postal Service explains that the historical
reason for separation of Cost Segment 4, which requires costs for small
post offices to be isolated and transparent, occurred when decisions to
close some small post offices were under consideration. Id. Proposal
Ten at 1. However, where postmasters (whose costs are reflected in Cost
Segment 1) in small post offices (identified by the Postal Service as
``CAG K'' and ``CAG L'' offices) \2\ may be doing all of the tasks with
no clerks, it is difficult to use Cost Segment 4 to adequately measure
labor costs at these post offices. Proposal Ten at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ ``CAG'' refers to ``cost ascertainment group'' and is a
method used by the Postal Service that classifies post offices based
on volume of revenue generated. CAG K offices have 36-189 revenue
units, and CAG L offices have less than 36. See Glossary of Postal
Terms available at https://usps.com/publications/pub32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The In-Office Cost System (IOCS) maintains a separate panel for CAG
K finance numbers that generally have one clerk. When the clerk is no
longer there, no IOCS readings can be obtained and, as the number of
IOCS reading of CAG K offices declines, the sampling variation
increases until the sample is refreshed. Data suggest product costs in
Cost Segment 4 are not statistically different from other small
offices. Id. at 2.
The Postal Service further explains that the POStPlan had
potentially confusing impacts in Cost Segments 3 and 4. The Postal
Service indicates that Postmaster Reliefs working at POStPlan \3\ post
offices were subject to reductions in force as a result of a September
5, 2014, ruling on an American Postal Workers Union arbitration that
required four-hour and six-hour post offices to be assigned to clerks.
According to the Postal Service, the effect of the ruling is that clerk
costs in Cost Segments 3 and 4 may complicate the analysis of the
effects of POStPlan. Furthermore, the Postal Service explains that
recent cost increases in Cost Segment 4 are the result of reclassifying
postmaster positions and shifting these positions from Cost Segment 1
to clerks in Cost Segments 3 and 4. Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The POStPlan is a Postal Service initiative to match post
office retail hours with workload, and represents an alternative,
namely reducing retail window hours, in lieu of closing a post
office. See Docket No. N2012-2, Advisory Opinion on Post Office
Structure Plan, August 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

Under the proposal, for Fiscal Year 2015, the IOCS would include
data from CAG K and L post offices with data from CAG H and J post
offices, and their trial balance amounts used as control totals for
full-time and part-time clerks would be merged and treated as one
stratum when refreshed. Id. at 3-4.
Cost Segment 4 Trial Balance Accounts would be merged into the
corresponding 5-digit accounts in Cost Segment 3, creating a revised
``Cost Segment 3 & 4'' worksheet. The Cost Segment 3 account numbers
and titles would be retained and the CRA Component would be expanded to
``253 & 42.'' Other conforming Trial Balance worksheet changes would be
made, but the merger will not affect the ``Outputs to CRA'' and
``Product specific'' tabs in the Trial Balance. Id. at 4.
In the Cost Segment 3 B workpapers, CAG K and L clerk costs would
be incorporated into the Trial Balance control for Cost Segment 3.
These changes would combine former Cost Segment 4 with the non-MODS
office group in Cost Segment 3, and subject the mail processing, window
service, and administrative activities at CAG K and L offices to the
accepted cost methodology for each component. Id. Cost Segment 3 output
spreadsheets and other reports would be unchanged. Id. The only change
to the CRA Cost Model is to remove lines in the control table on sheets
``Comp Master'' and ``DK Addends'' relating to Cost Segment 4. Id.

[[Page 50816]]

C. Rationale

The Postal Service's rationale for Proposal Ten is that clerk costs
in Cost Segment 4 have increased recently as clerks are appointed or
assigned to former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. Moreover, because
the CAG criterion using revenue amount to define Cost Segment 4 is
sufficiently different from the transaction volumes used in POStPlan to
designate post offices for reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not a
valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Id. The Postal Service further
says the cost classification rationale for Cost Segment 4 is similar to
Cost Segment 3 cost components because CAG K and L clerks perform a
corresponding mix of activities such as mail processing, window
service, and administrative components. However, Cost Segment 4 has
limited IOCS sample data and some products have no Cost Segment 4
tallies, which results in zero measured costs in a given year.
The Postal Service concludes that incorporating Cost Segment 4
costs with other post office costs would be a more reliable analysis
for cost attribution and in line with Cost Segment 3 methodology. It
would result in a better assessment of clerk costs and avoid
distortions from analyzing Cost Segment 4 separately. Id.
Proposal Ten includes a table demonstrating the impact of merging
Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment 3 costs by product. It shows a
cost difference from a merger of $1,412,000 out of $12,945,185,000 or a
0.01 percent difference.\4\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Annual
Compliance Report, USPS-FY14-32 and two additional files attached
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Initial Commission Action

The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-19 for consideration
of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning
the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and
Proposal Ten no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due
no later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission designates Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the
general public in this proceeding.

IV. Ordering Paragraphs

It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-19 for
consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United
States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), filed August
12, 2015.
2. Comments are due no later than September 17, 2015. Reply
comments are due no later than September 28, 2015.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R.
Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in
this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Federal Register.

By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20633 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

50816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

C. Rationale matters raised by the Petition of the proposing to approve Kansas’ SIP
The Postal Service’s rationale for United States Postal Service Requesting revision because it meets the
Proposal Ten is that clerk costs in Cost Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a requirements of the CAA and the
Segment 4 have increased recently as Proposed Change in Analytical CSAPR requirements to replace EPA’s
clerks are appointed or assigned to Principles (Proposal Ten), filed August allowance allocations for the 2016
former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. 12, 2015. control periods. This action is being
Moreover, because the CAG criterion 2. Comments are due no later than proposed pursuant to the CAA and its
using revenue amount to define Cost September 17, 2015. Reply comments implementing regulations. EPA’s
Segment 4 is sufficiently different from are due no later than September 28, allocations of CSAPR trading program
the transaction volumes used in 2015. allowances for Kansas for control
POStPlan to designate post offices for 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the periods in 2017 and beyond remain in
reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not Commission appoints Kenneth R. place until the State submits and EPA
a valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Moeller to serve as an officer of the approves state-determined allowance
Id. The Postal Service further says the Commission (Public Representative) to allocations for those control periods
cost classification rationale for Cost represent the interests of the general through another SIP revision. The
Segment 4 is similar to Cost Segment 3 public in this docket. CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place
4. The Secretary shall arrange for until such time as the State decides to
cost components because CAG K and L
publication of this order in the Federal replace the FIPs with a SIP revision.
clerks perform a corresponding mix of
activities such as mail processing, Register. DATES: Comments on this proposed
window service, and administrative By the Commission. action must be received in writing by
components. However, Cost Segment 4 Shoshana M. Grove,
September 21, 2015.
has limited IOCS sample data and some ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Secretary.
products have no Cost Segment 4 tallies, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
[FR Doc. 2015–20633 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]
which results in zero measured costs in OAR–2015–0564, by mail to Lachala
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
a given year. Kemp, Environmental Protection
The Postal Service concludes that Agency, Air Planning and Development
incorporating Cost Segment 4 costs with Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
other post office costs would be a more ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may
reliable analysis for cost attribution and AGENCY also be submitted electronically or
in line with Cost Segment 3 through hand delivery/courier by
40 CFR Part 52 following the detailed instructions in
methodology. It would result in a better
assessment of clerk costs and avoid [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0564; FRL–9932–82– the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
distortions from analyzing Cost Segment Region 7] rule located in the rules section of this
4 separately. Id. Federal Register.
Proposal Ten includes a table Approval and Promulgation of Air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
demonstrating the impact of merging Quality Implementation Plans; State of Lachala Kemp, Environmental
Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule Protection Agency, Air Planning and
3 costs by product. It shows a cost AGENCY: Environmental Protection Development Branch, 11201 Renner
difference from a merger of $1,412,000 Agency (EPA). Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
out of $12,945,185,000 or a 0.01 percent ACTION: Proposed rule.
(913) 551–7214 or by email at
difference.4 Id. at 6. kemp.lachala@epa.gov.
III. Initial Commission Action SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve final rules section of this Federal
The Commission establishes Docket revisions to the State Implementation Register, EPA is approving the state’s
No. RM2015–19 for consideration of Plan (SIP) for the State of Kansas SIP revision as a direct final rule
matters raised by the Petition. submitted on March 30, 2015. This SIP without prior proposal because the
Additional information concerning the revision provides Kansas’ state- Agency views this as a noncontroversial
Petition may be accessed via the determined allowance allocations for revision amendment and anticipates no
Commission’s Web site at http:// existing electric generating units (EGUs) relevant adverse comments to this
www.prc.gov. Interested persons may in the State for the 2016 control periods action. A detailed rationale for the
submit comments on the Petition and and replaces the allowance allocations approval is set forth in the direct final
Proposal Ten no later than September for the 2016 control periods established rule. If no relevant adverse comments
17, 2015. Reply comments are due no by EPA under the Cross-State Air are received in response to this action,
later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR no further activity is contemplated in
to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission addresses the ‘‘good neighbor’’ relation to this action. If EPA receives
designates Kenneth R. Moeller to serve provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or relevant adverse comments, the direct
as an officer of the Commission (Public Act) that requires states to reduce the final rule will be withdrawn and all
Representative) representing the transport of pollution that significantly public comments received will be
interests of the general public in this affects downwind nonattainment and addressed in a subsequent final rule
proceeding. maintenance areas. EPA is proposing to based on this proposed action. EPA will
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

IV. Ordering Paragraphs approve Kansas’ SIP revision, not institute a second comment period
incorporate the state-determined on this action. Any parties interested in
It is ordered:
allocations for the 2016 control periods commenting on this action should do so
1. The Commission establishes Docket
into the SIP, and amend the regulatory at this time. Please note that if EPA
No. RM2015–19 for consideration of the
text of the CSAPR Federal receives adverse comment on part of
4 The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect this rule and if that part can be severed
Annual Compliance Report, USPS–FY14–32 and approval and inclusion of the state- from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
two additional files attached electronically. determined allocations. EPA is adopt as final those parts of the rule that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM 21AUP1

Document Created: 2018-02-23 11:01:23
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 11:01:23

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Comments are due: September 17, 2015. Reply Comments are due: September 28, 2015.
Contact		David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
FR Citation		80 FR 50815