80 FR 68480 - Periodic Reporting
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 68480-68481 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28127 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 68480-68481] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28127] [[Page 68480]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2016-2; Order No. 2793] Periodic Reporting AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal One Through Three). The Commission will consider Proposals One and Two at this time. Proposal Three will be held in abeyance. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: January 20, 2016. Reply Comments are due: March 25, 2016. 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. Summary of Proposals III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On October 8, 2015, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes to how the Postal Service accounts for the costs of competitive products in its periodic reports.\1\ Proposals One, Two, and Three are attached to the Petition along with a report created by Dr. Kevin Neels (Dr. Neels), an economic consultant, which supports each Proposal. UPS concurrently filed a non-public library reference with its Petition.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal Service Costing Methodologies, October 8, 2015 (Petition). \2\ Notice of Filing Library Reference UPS-RM2016-2/LR-NP1, October 8, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPS explains that the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act freed the Postal Service from certain rate-making conditions so that it could better compete with private companies in the parcel markets. Petition at 3. UPS notes, however, that when regulated entities such as the Postal Service are allowed to compete with private companies, ``the regulated entity has a natural incentive to leverage the monopoly revenues it is making from sales to its captive customers (here, those purchasing letter mail services) to finance the competitive ventures.'' Id. at 2. UPS contends that in exchange for new pricing ``freedoms,'' and in recognition of the Postal Service's ``inherent incentive'' to expand its competitive ventures at the expense of its captive customers, Congress mandated that ``the Postal Service could not subsidize its expansion into competitive parcel delivery markets with revenues it enjoys from the products it sells pursuant to the letter monopoly.'' Id. at 3, 4. UPS cites 39 U.S.C. 3633, which prohibits the subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products; requires that each competitive product cover its own attributable costs; and mandates that competitive products collectively cover an appropriate share of the Postal Service's institutional costs.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Id. at 4-5. See also 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPS states that it is filing this Petition after an ``exhaustive analysis'' of the Postal Service's cost methodologies. Id. at 5. UPS asserts that its analysis reveals that the Postal Service is ``failing to ensure that its competitive products business is recovering all costs fairly attributable to that business'' and that the Postal Service ``is not accounting fully for the true costs'' of its competitive products. Id. at 5-6. UPS states that its analysis shows the Postal Service is misclassifying a significant amount of variable costs; \4\ therefore, ``competitive products are not bearing the full scope of the variable costs attributable to them.'' Id. at 7. Accordingly, UPS presents three proposals to change the Postal Service's current costing methodologies. Id. at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The term variable cost is a relatively new term for Commission proceedings. It is not the same as volume variable cost, which is based on marginal cost. Each piece of mail that enters the postal system imposes an additional cost. As mail pieces continue to be entered into the postal system, these additional costs increase in total. Thus these costs vary with volume. The cost imposed on the postal system by the last piece entered into the system is the marginal cost. The additional costs imposed by previous pieces entered into the postal system are called inframarginal costs. The sum of all of these additional costs, including the cost of the last piece, is called variable costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Proposal One, UPS recommends that the Postal Service incorporate all the variable costs, including the inframarginal costs attributable to individual products.\5\ In Proposal Two, UPS recommends that certain costs currently identified as fixed be reclassified as fully or partially variable and subsequently attributed to individual products. Petition, Proposal Two at 1. In Proposal Three, UPS recommends that the Commission increase the ``appropriate share'' pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), from 5.5 percent \6\ to 24.6 percent, which is the competitive products' 3-year trailing average of the share of total attributable costs. Petition, Proposal Three at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Petition, Proposal One at 1. UPS refers to the marginal costs associated with every preceding piece of mail as ``inframarginal costs.'' Id. \6\ See 39 CFR 3015.7(c). The Commission most recently retained this share at 5.5 percent. See generally, Docket No. RM2012-3, Order Reviewing Competitive Products' Appropriate Share Contribution to Institutional Costs, August 23, 2012 (Order No. 1449). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of Proposals A. Proposal One In Proposal One, UPS explains that in order to attribute costs to products, the Postal Service first estimates the marginal cost of various cost segments. Petition, Proposal One at 1-2. UPS notes, however, that the Postal Service's cost attribution method ``effectively assumes that the cost associated with adding the last unit of mail is identical to the cost associated with adding each and every unit of mail.'' Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted). UPS argues that this is only a reasonable assumption when marginal costs are consistent throughout all volume levels. Id. UPS claims that when marginal costs decline as the level of volume increases, the cost associated with the last mail piece is lower than the marginal cost associated with producing each preceding piece. Id. Thus, it argues that by attributing only the marginal cost of the last piece of mail, the Postal Service is failing to attribute the higher marginal costs associated with producing every preceding piece in those cost components that exhibit declining marginal costs. Id. UPS recommends that the Postal Service include the inframarginal costs of individual products in its calculation of the costs attributable to those products. Petition at 1. It argues that distribution keys, which are currently used to calculate ``volume variable'' costs, can be used to distribute inframarginal costs to products. Id. Proposal One at 19, 20. UPS states that [[Page 68481]] ``[a]ttributing inframarginal costs to products using the existing distribution keys is just as reliable as attributing marginal costs to products using those distribution keys. Id. at 20. B. Proposal Two In Proposal Two, UPS contends that the Postal Service has a ``systematic tendency to misclassify costs as fixed.'' Petition at 10. Such fixed costs, which are a major component of institutional costs, are not attributed to specific products.\7\ UPS asserts that the Postal Service's misclassification of certain costs as fixed allows it to ``largely ignore'' such costs when setting the prices for its competitive products. Petition at 10. Based on UPS's belief that fixed and institutional costs are ``borne disproportionately'' by market dominant products, it concludes that the Postal Service's systemic misclassification of costs as fixed results in the improper subsidization of competitive products by market dominant products, in violation of 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1). Id. Proposal Two at 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Id. Proposal Two at 2. 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) requires that competitive products cover an ``appropriate share'' of institutional costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relying on Dr. Neels' analysis, UPS identifies 37 cost pools that it believes should be reclassified as wholly or partially variable. Id. at 1. UPS contends that Dr. Neels' analysis reveals that over $3 billion in costs have been misclassified as fixed, and thus, have not been properly attributed to products. Id. at 8. UPS requests that the Commission attribute these reclassified costs to specific products based on their respective shares of overall attributable costs in the prior fiscal year. Id. at 10. Using this methodology, UPS estimates that over $700 million of costs have not been properly attributed to the Postal Service's competitive products. Id. at 8. C. Proposal Three Unlike Proposals One and Two, Proposal Three does not involve issues related to the proper attribution of variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Rather, in Proposal Three, UPS requests that the Commission reconsider the ``appropriate share'' of institutional costs that must be covered by competitive products. Petition, Proposal Three at 1. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(b), the Commission is required to review the appropriate share requirement at least every 5 years to determine if the percentage should be ``retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.'' The current appropriate share, set by the Commission in CY 2012, is 5.5 percent. See Order 1449 at 27. In light of competitive products' volume growth in recent years, along with the Postal Service's significant investments in its competitive business, UPS believes that the current appropriate share percentage does not reflect current market conditions. Petition, Proposal Three at 6-14. To ensure that the Postal Service competes fairly, UPS asserts that the appropriate share percentage should be set at a level that approximates the fixed costs that a private competitor must bear. Id. at 14. Accordingly, UPS recommends that the appropriate share percentage be set at 24.6 percent. Id. UPS states that this percentage is equal to the average of the ``previous three years of attributable cost shares'' for competitive products. Id. UPS also encourages the Commission to adopt a mechanism that would adjust the appropriate share percentage each year in order to account for the fluctuation of postal cost and market realities. Id. at 14-15. III. Initial Commission Action The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two as raised by the Petition. The Commission holds Proposal Three in abeyance until it has completed its review of Proposals One and Two. As discussed above, Proposals One and Two both relate to the proper attribution of all variable costs to the Postal Service's products. Given the interrelatedness of these two proposals, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider them together in this docket. However, as UPS itself discussed in its Petition, if Proposals One and Two are adopted, unattributed costs will decline from $34.2 billion in FY 2014 to approximately $17 billion. Petition at 11- 12. Given the potentially significant impact that Proposals One and Two could have on the size of the Postal Service's unattributed costs, and given that Proposal Three relates to the portion of these costs that should be covered by competitive products, the Commission finds that consideration of Proposal Three should be delayed until the impact of Proposals One and Two are known. Both the Commission and the mailing community will benefit from having this information before evaluating UPS's proposed adjustments to the appropriate share requirement. Further, the Commission must allocate its finite resources across multiple priorities. Simultaneously considering all three proposals may result in the Commission having insufficient resources to bring to bear on other critical responsibilities. 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 Proposals One and Two in the Petition no later than January 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than March 25, 2016. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. IV. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2016-2 for consideration of Proposals One and Two from the Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal Service Costing Methodologies, filed October 8, 2015. 2. Consideration of Proposal Three from the Petition is held in abeyance until the Commission has completed its review of Proposals One and Two. 3. Comments are due no later than January 20, 2016. Reply comments are due no later than March 25, 2016. 4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth E. Richardson to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-28127 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
![68480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION UPS explains that the Postal In Proposal One, UPS recommends
Accountability and Enhancement Act that the Postal Service incorporate all
39 CFR Part 3050 freed the Postal Service from certain the variable costs, including the
[Docket No. RM2016–2; Order No. 2793] rate-making conditions so that it could inframarginal costs attributable to
better compete with private companies individual products.5 In Proposal Two,
Periodic Reporting in the parcel markets. Petition at 3. UPS UPS recommends that certain costs
notes, however, that when regulated currently identified as fixed be
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. entities such as the Postal Service are reclassified as fully or partially variable
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. allowed to compete with private and subsequently attributed to
companies, ‘‘the regulated entity has a individual products. Petition, Proposal
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a natural incentive to leverage the Two at 1. In Proposal Three, UPS
recent filing requesting that the monopoly revenues it is making from recommends that the Commission
Commission initiate an informal sales to its captive customers (here, increase the ‘‘appropriate share’’
rulemaking proceeding to consider those purchasing letter mail services) to pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), from
changes to analytical principles relating finance the competitive ventures.’’ Id. at 5.5 percent 6 to 24.6 percent, which is
to periodic reports (Proposal One 2. UPS contends that in exchange for the competitive products’ 3-year trailing
Through Three). The Commission will new pricing ‘‘freedoms,’’ and in average of the share of total attributable
consider Proposals One and Two at this recognition of the Postal Service’s costs. Petition, Proposal Three at 1.
time. Proposal Three will be held in ‘‘inherent incentive’’ to expand its
abeyance. This notice informs the II. Summary of Proposals
competitive ventures at the expense of
public of the filing, invites public its captive customers, Congress A. Proposal One
comment, and takes other mandated that ‘‘the Postal Service could In Proposal One, UPS explains that in
administrative steps. not subsidize its expansion into order to attribute costs to products, the
DATES: Comments are due: January 20, competitive parcel delivery markets Postal Service first estimates the
2016. Reply Comments are due: March with revenues it enjoys from the marginal cost of various cost segments.
25, 2016. products it sells pursuant to the letter Petition, Proposal One at 1–2. UPS
ADDRESSES: Submit comments monopoly.’’ Id. at 3, 4. UPS cites 39 notes, however, that the Postal Service’s
electronically via the Commission’s U.S.C. 3633, which prohibits the cost attribution method ‘‘effectively
Filing Online system at http:// subsidization of competitive products assumes that the cost associated with
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit by market dominant products; requires adding the last unit of mail is identical
comments electronically should contact that each competitive product cover its to the cost associated with adding each
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER own attributable costs; and mandates and every unit of mail.’’ Id. at 4
INFORMATION CONTACT section by that competitive products collectively (emphasis omitted).
telephone for advice on filing cover an appropriate share of the Postal UPS argues that this is only a
alternatives. Service’s institutional costs.3 reasonable assumption when marginal
UPS states that it is filing this Petition costs are consistent throughout all
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
after an ‘‘exhaustive analysis’’ of the volume levels. Id. UPS claims that when
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at marginal costs decline as the level of
Postal Service’s cost methodologies. Id.
202–789–6820. volume increases, the cost associated
at 5. UPS asserts that its analysis reveals
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that the Postal Service is ‘‘failing to with the last mail piece is lower than
Table of Contents ensure that its competitive products the marginal cost associated with
business is recovering all costs fairly producing each preceding piece. Id.
I. Introduction Thus, it argues that by attributing only
attributable to that business’’ and that
II. Summary of Proposals the marginal cost of the last piece of
III. Initial Commission Action the Postal Service ‘‘is not accounting
IV. Ordering Paragraphs fully for the true costs’’ of its mail, the Postal Service is failing to
competitive products. Id. at 5–6. UPS attribute the higher marginal costs
I. Introduction states that its analysis shows the Postal associated with producing every
On October 8, 2015, the United Parcel Service is misclassifying a significant preceding piece in those cost
Service, Inc. (UPS) filed a petition amount of variable costs; 4 therefore, components that exhibit declining
pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting ‘‘competitive products are not bearing marginal costs. Id.
that the Commission initiate a the full scope of the variable costs UPS recommends that the Postal
rulemaking proceeding in order to attributable to them.’’ Id. at 7. Service include the inframarginal costs
consider changes to how the Postal Accordingly, UPS presents three of individual products in its calculation
Service accounts for the costs of proposals to change the Postal Service’s of the costs attributable to those
competitive products in its periodic current costing methodologies. Id. at 1. products. Petition at 1. It argues that
reports.1 Proposals One, Two, and Three distribution keys, which are currently
are attached to the Petition along with 3 Id. at 4–5. See also 39 U.S.C. 3633(a). used to calculate ‘‘volume variable’’
a report created by Dr. Kevin Neels (Dr.
4 The term variable cost is a relatively new term costs, can be used to distribute
for Commission proceedings. It is not the same as inframarginal costs to products. Id.
Neels), an economic consultant, which volume variable cost, which is based on marginal
supports each Proposal. UPS cost. Each piece of mail that enters the postal
Proposal One at 19, 20. UPS states that
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
concurrently filed a non-public library system imposes an additional cost. As mail pieces
5 Petition, Proposal One at 1. UPS refers to the
continue to be entered into the postal system, these
reference with its Petition.2 additional costs increase in total. Thus these costs marginal costs associated with every preceding
vary with volume. The cost imposed on the postal piece of mail as ‘‘inframarginal costs.’’ Id.
1 Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc. for the
system by the last piece entered into the system is 6 See 39 CFR 3015.7(c). The Commission most
Initiation of Proceedings to Make Changes to Postal the marginal cost. The additional costs imposed by recently retained this share at 5.5 percent. See
Service Costing Methodologies, October 8, 2015 previous pieces entered into the postal system are generally, Docket No. RM2012–3, Order Reviewing
(Petition). called inframarginal costs. The sum of all of these Competitive Products’ Appropriate Share
2 Notice of Filing Library Reference UPS– additional costs, including the cost of the last piece, Contribution to Institutional Costs, August 23, 2012
RM2016–2/LR–NP1, October 8, 2015. is called variable costs. (Order No. 1449).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68694/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules 68481
‘‘[a]ttributing inframarginal costs to 2012, is 5.5 percent. See Order 1449 at resources to bring to bear on other
products using the existing distribution 27. critical responsibilities.
keys is just as reliable as attributing In light of competitive products’ Additional information concerning
marginal costs to products using those volume growth in recent years, along the Petition may be accessed via the
distribution keys. Id. at 20. with the Postal Service’s significant Commission’s Web site at http://
investments in its competitive business, www.prc.gov. Interested persons may
B. Proposal Two
UPS believes that the current submit comments on Proposals One and
In Proposal Two, UPS contends that appropriate share percentage does not Two in the Petition no later than
the Postal Service has a ‘‘systematic reflect current market conditions. January 20, 2016. Reply comments are
tendency to misclassify costs as fixed.’’ Petition, Proposal Three at 6–14. To due no later than March 25, 2016.
Petition at 10. Such fixed costs, which ensure that the Postal Service competes Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E.
are a major component of institutional fairly, UPS asserts that the appropriate Richardson is designated as an officer of
costs, are not attributed to specific share percentage should be set at a level the Commission (Public Representative)
products.7 UPS asserts that the Postal that approximates the fixed costs that a to represent the interests of the general
Service’s misclassification of certain private competitor must bear. Id. at 14. public in this proceeding.
costs as fixed allows it to ‘‘largely Accordingly, UPS recommends that the IV. Ordering Paragraphs
ignore’’ such costs when setting the appropriate share percentage be set at
prices for its competitive products. 24.6 percent. Id. UPS states that this It is ordered:
Petition at 10. Based on UPS’s belief percentage is equal to the average of the 1. The Commission establishes Docket
that fixed and institutional costs are ‘‘previous three years of attributable cost No. RM2016–2 for consideration of
‘‘borne disproportionately’’ by market shares’’ for competitive products. Id. Proposals One and Two from the
dominant products, it concludes that UPS also encourages the Commission to Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc.
the Postal Service’s systemic adopt a mechanism that would adjust for the Initiation of Proceedings to Make
misclassification of costs as fixed results the appropriate share percentage each Changes to Postal Service Costing
in the improper subsidization of year in order to account for the Methodologies, filed October 8, 2015.
competitive products by market fluctuation of postal cost and market 2. Consideration of Proposal Three
dominant products, in violation of 39 realities. Id. at 14–15. from the Petition is held in abeyance
U.S.C. 3633(a)(1). Id. Proposal Two at 5. until the Commission has completed its
III. Initial Commission Action review of Proposals One and Two.
Relying on Dr. Neels’ analysis, UPS
The Commission establishes Docket 3. Comments are due no later than
identifies 37 cost pools that it believes
No. RM2016–2 for consideration of January 20, 2016. Reply comments are
should be reclassified as wholly or
Proposals One and Two as raised by the due no later than March 25, 2016.
partially variable. Id. at 1. UPS contends
Petition. The Commission holds 4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
that Dr. Neels’ analysis reveals that over
Proposal Three in abeyance until it has Commission appoints Kenneth E.
$3 billion in costs have been
completed its review of Proposals One Richardson to serve as an officer of the
misclassified as fixed, and thus, have
and Two. As discussed above, Proposals Commission (Public Representative) to
not been properly attributed to
One and Two both relate to the proper represent the interests of the general
products. Id. at 8. UPS requests that the
attribution of all variable costs to the public in this docket.
Commission attribute these reclassified
Postal Service’s products. Given the 5. The Secretary shall arrange for
costs to specific products based on their
interrelatedness of these two proposals, publication of this order in the Federal
respective shares of overall attributable
the Commission finds that it is Register.
costs in the prior fiscal year. Id. at 10.
Using this methodology, UPS estimates appropriate to consider them together in By the Commission.
that over $700 million of costs have not this docket. However, as UPS itself Stacy L. Ruble,
been properly attributed to the Postal discussed in its Petition, if Proposals Secretary.
Service’s competitive products. Id. at 8. One and Two are adopted, unattributed [FR Doc. 2015–28127 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
costs will decline from $34.2 billion in
C. Proposal Three BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
FY 2014 to approximately $17 billion.
Unlike Proposals One and Two, Petition at 11–12.
Proposal Three does not involve issues Given the potentially significant
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
related to the proper attribution of impact that Proposals One and Two
AGENCY
variable costs to the Postal Service’s could have on the size of the Postal
products. Rather, in Proposal Three, Service’s unattributed costs, and given 40 CFR Part 52
UPS requests that the Commission that Proposal Three relates to the
portion of these costs that should be [EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0434; FRL–9936–61–
reconsider the ‘‘appropriate share’’ of Region 6]
institutional costs that must be covered covered by competitive products, the
by competitive products. Petition, Commission finds that consideration of
Approval and Promulgation of State
Proposal Three at 1. Pursuant to 39 Proposal Three should be delayed until
Implementation Plans, Louisiana
U.S.C. 3633(b), the Commission is the impact of Proposals One and Two
required to review the appropriate share are known. Both the Commission and AGENCY: Environmental Protection
the mailing community will benefit Agency (EPA).
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirement at least every 5 years to
determine if the percentage should be from having this information before ACTION: Proposed rule.
‘‘retained in its current form, modified, evaluating UPS’s proposed adjustments
or eliminated.’’ The current appropriate to the appropriate share requirement. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
share, set by the Commission in CY Further, the Commission must allocate Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
its finite resources across multiple revisions to the State Implementation
7 Id. Proposal Two at 2. 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3) priorities. Simultaneously considering Plan (SIP) for Louisiana. These rule
requires that competitive products cover an all three proposals may result in the revisions are the 2007 General
‘‘appropriate share’’ of institutional costs. Commission having insufficient Revisions, and 2008–2010
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:36 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM 05NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68694/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:03:08
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:03:08
| 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: January 20, 2016. Reply Comments are due: March 25, 2016. | |
| Contact | David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 68480 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR