83 FR 32069 - Periodic Reporting
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 133 (July 11, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 133 (July 11, 2018)
| Page Range | 32069-32071 | |
| FR Document | 2018-14768 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 32069-32071] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-14768] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2018-10; Order No. 4696] Periodic Reporting AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Seven). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: September 5, 2018. 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 Seven III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On June 29, 2018, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.\1\ The Petition identifies the proposed analytical changes filed in this docket as Proposal Seven. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), June 29, 2018 (Petition). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Proposal Seven Background. The Proposal Seven objective is to ``reorganize Cost Segment 3 and certain mail processing cost pools [[Page 32070]] to reflect operational changes and to better classify clerk and mail handler work activities.'' Petition at 1. Since its inception, the current Cost Segment 3 methodology has divided clerk and mail handler costs into costs incurred at ``MODS'' offices, NDCs and ``non-MODS'' facilities. Petition, Proposal Seven at 1. Within each office group, the Cost Segment 3 model divides mail processing activities into activity-based cost pools. Id. The cost pools allow for distinct causal assignments of volume-variable costs to products for activities with distinct product mixes and/or distinct roles in the mail processing system. Id. The Postal Service states ``[i]mprovements to the non-MODS cost methodology introduced activity- based mail processing cost pools which currently offer finer activity detail than the corresponding MODS cost pools.'' Id. at 2. The Postal Service notes: The primary operational distinction is between ``Function 1'' mail processing (i.e. mail processing at plants) and ``Function 4'' activities (processing, window service, and other activities at customer service facilities including post offices, stations, and branches) and that [a] significant aim of this proposal is to align the Cost Segment 3 office groups with this operational distinction, and to provide a common set of cost pools for reporting Function 4 costs based on the non-MODS cost pools. Id. The Postal Service states ``[m]ail processing cost pools also require periodic revision to maintain consistency with Postal Service operations. This proposal includes several mail processing cost pool changes intended to improve the treatment of certain new equipment, as well as to prepare for the eventual withdrawal of other equipment from service.'' Id. at 2-3. Proposal. The Postal Service proposes the following actions to reorganize MODS and non-MODS office groups for the Cost Segment 3 model, and to revise certain mail processing cost pools for MODS plant and NDCs (formerly BMCs): 1. Redefine the ``MODS'' office group to include only MODS- reporting plants, with other offices assigned to the non-MODS group. (footnote omitted) 2. Consolidate LDC 15 LCREM operations (currently in cost pool LD15PLNT) into the D/BCS cost pool. 3. Consolidate the FSM/1000 cost pool into the AFSM100 cost pool. 4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool (MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100 cost pool. 5. Collect operations for the Low-Cost Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack Sorting Machine in new LCUS-SSM cost pools for MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well as the NDC SSM cost pool. 6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC and NDC NMO cost pools. 7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS OTH cost pools such that the former includes all applicable parcel (TPH) operations, limiting the latter to bundle (NATPH) operations. 8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail distribution operations from the OTHR cost pool to the MANP cost pool. (footnote omitted) 9. Employ non-MODS methodology to assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools, including costs pools currently in the MODS office group. (footnote omitted) 10. Realign facility space categories and distribution keys in conjunction with labor cost changes. Id. at 3-4. Rationale and impact: The Postal Service lists separately the rationale for each revision in Proposal Seven as follows: 1. Redefine the ``MODS'' office group to include only MODS- reporting plants, with other offices assigned to non-MODS group. Redefinition will ``make it easier to analyze mail processing costs at post offices, stations, and branches under a common set of cost pools. The offices that are proposed to shift to the non-MODS group, [are] nearly all of the mail processing costs which are in ``Function 4'' (LDC41-49) cost pools.'' Id. at 5. This will provide a more consistent treatment of Function 4 costs. ``Currently, costs for otherwise similar activities--particularly manual mail processing at customer service facilities--may be treated differently depending on whether they occur at a MODS or non-MODS finance number.'' Id. at 6. 2. Consolidate LDC15LCREM operations in cost pool LD15PLNT into the D/BCS cost pool. The Low-Cost Reject Encoding Machine (LCREM) cost pool is assigned to a small cost pool and will be included with other LCREM operations already included in LDC 11, currently part of the much larger D/BCS cost pool. Id. at 6. 3. Consolidate FSM/1000 into AFSM 100 cost pool. This is to provide for the phase-out of remaining operations for UFSM 1000 equipment. Continuing decline is expected and the activity in FSM/ 1000 cost pools no longer has a material effect on mail processing costs. Id. at 6-7. 4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool (MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100 cost pool. This is to harmonize treatment of 1FLATPRP (MODS operation 035) with other flat preparation operations in the Cost Segment 3.1 model. The declining scale of remaining FSM/10000 operations no longer justifies separate treatment of 1FLATPRP. Id. at 7. 5. Collect operations for the low-Cost Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack sorting Machine in new LCUS-SSM cost pools for MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well as the NDC SSM cost pool. Consolidation should limit the potential impact of clocking errors within LCUS operations and also facilitate computation of operation-specific piggyback costs. Id. at 8. 6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC and NDC NMO cost pools. ``[T]here are no other valid plant operations remaining in the MECPARC cost pool after the universal sorter operations have been gathered into the new LCUS-SSM cost pool.'' New automated parcel equipment would be assigned to the APBSPRIO cost pool. Therefore, ``there will be no valid workhours for the NDC NMO cost pool going forward.'' Id. at 9. 7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS OTH cost pools. Moving minor parcel operations with a small number of workhours from APBS OTH to APBSPRIO will be consistent with the treatment of other parcel operations and reinforce the conceptual definition of APBS as the automated bundle sorting cost pool. Id. 8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail distribution operations from the OTHR cost pool to the MANP cost pool. ``[T]reating these operations as part of the MANP distribution cost pool will reduce the possibility that mixed-mail costs will be distributed to non- parcels and/or parcel products that receive automated processing.'' Id. at 10. 9. Employ non-MODS methodology to assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools, including cost pools currently in the MODS office group. This will simplify report of Function 4 costs that are currently spread across cost pools in the two office groups defined similarly and reduce cases where costs from similar activities may be treated differently based on their office group. Id. at 10. ``[T]he larger effective sample sizes from combining MODS Function 4 tallies with non-MODS should result in little or no adverse effect on the coefficients of variation (CVs) for the sample-based cost estimates.'' Id. at 11. 10. Realign facility space categories and distribution keys in conjunction with labor cost changes. ``[U]nder the proposed methodology, labor cost pool consolidations would require corresponding consolidations of associated facility space distribution keys and associated space costs (and square footage).'' Id. The Postal Service's estimate of the effect on product costs is presented in Table 1 in the Excel file attached to the Petition. The Postal Service states ``[t]he Cost Segment 3 impact includes the effects of the proposal on the Mail Processing, Window Service, and Administrative components[,]'' as well as ``revisions to distribution keys for piggybacked costs[,]'' which ``may variously reinforce or offset the direct impact on Cost Segment 3 labor costs.'' The impact is small in most cases. Id. at 12. III. Notice and Comment The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-10 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Seven no later than September 5, 2018. Pursuant to 39 [[Page 32071]] U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster 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. RM2018-10 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), filed June 29, 2018. 2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than September 5, 2018. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster 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. Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-14768 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32069
calendar year as attributable to the noticed in December 2017, that Dated: July 2, 2018.
succeeding calendar year.’’ 12 In proposes to address a wider and more Regan A. Smith,
practice, the Register has not previously complex set of issues related to General Counsel and Associate Register of
established a procedure to exercise this statement of account reporting practices, Copyrights.
discretion. The Copyright Office now particularly the section 111 license for [FR Doc. 2018–14543 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
proposes to close out funds or subfunds cable systems.17 The Office has BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
at any time four years after the close of extended the public comment period for
the calendar year for a given fund, if that December 2017 NPRM to October 4,
that fund is subject to a final 2018.18 Meanwhile, while the change POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
distribution order. In accordance with removing the requirement that royalty
section 1005, the Register will treat any fees must be paid in ‘‘a single’’ payment 39 CFR Part 3050
funds remaining in such account or is intended to be technical, the Office
subsequent deposits as attributable to [Docket No. RM2018–10; Order No. 4696]
solicits public comment on this discrete
the closest succeeding calendar year. issue as part of this current rulemaking. Periodic Reporting
The Office proposes to codify this
practice in its proposed rule, and seeks List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
comment on this proposal. Copyright, General provisions. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
B. Payment of Royalty Fees by Proposed Regulations SUMMARY: The Commission is
Electronic Funds Transfer For the reasons set forth in the acknowledging a recent filing requesting
The Licensing Division administers preamble, the Copyright Office proposes the Commission initiate an informal
various statutory licensing schemes, amending 37 CFR part 201 as follows: rulemaking proceeding to consider
including those requiring the changes to an analytical method for use
submission of statements of account by PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS in periodic reporting (Proposal Seven).
cable systems, satellite carriers, and This document informs the public of the
manufacturers or importers of digital ■ 1. The authority citation for part 201
continues to read as follows: filing, invites public comment, and
audio recording devices and media.13 takes other administrative steps.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, the Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
DATES: Comments are due: September 5,
Copyright Office has set out the 2018.
§ 201.11 [Amended]
requirements for payment of royalty fees
■ 2. Amend § 201.11 by removing ‘‘a ADDRESSES: Submit comments
under each of these statutory licenses by
single’’ from paragraph (f)(1). electronically via the Commission’s
regulation.14 One such requirement for
Filing Online system at http://
all of these statutory licenses is that § 201.17 [Amended] www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
‘‘[a]ll royalty fees shall be paid by a ■ 3. Amend § 201.17 by removing ‘‘a comments electronically should contact
single electronic funds transfer.’’ 15 This single’’ from paragraph (k)(1) the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
language became effective in 2006, as introductory text. INFORMATION CONTACT section by
part of the final rule requiring remitters
telephone for advice on filing
to pay royalty payments by electronic § 201.28 [Amended]
funds transfer (‘‘EFT’’).16 alternatives.
■ 4. Amend § 201.28 by removing ‘‘a
In practice, however, the Office has single’’ from paragraph (h)(1) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
found that the requirement that introductory text. David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
remitters make royalty payments for ■ 5. Add § 201.31 to read as follows: 202–789–6820.
multiple statements of account in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
single, lump sum payment is § 201.31 Procedures for closing out
unnecessarily restrictive and has royalty payments accounts in accordance Table of Contents
hampered ongoing modernization with the Audio Home Recording Act.
I. Introduction
efforts. Accordingly, the Office proposes (a) General. This section prescribes II. Proposal Seven
to remove the requirement that filers rules pertaining to the close out of III. Notice and Comment
submit multiple SOAs in a single EFT royalty payments accounts in IV. Ordering Paragraphs
payment for the relevant statutory accordance with 17 U.S.C. 1005.
(b) In the Register’s discretion, four I. Introduction
licenses, specifically, by amending 37
CFR 201.11(f)(1), 201.17(k)(1), and years after the close of any calendar On June 29, 2018, the Postal Service
201.28(h)(1) to remove the requirement year, the Register of Copyrights may filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR
that royalty fees must be paid in ‘‘a close out the royalty payments account 3050.11 requesting that the Commission
single’’ payment. The current regulatory for that calendar year, including any initiate a rulemaking proceeding to
requirement that funds be submitted sub-accounts, that are subject to a final consider changes to analytical
through EFT will remain in place. distribution order under which royalty principles relating to periodic reports.1
Because the Office seeks to implement payments have been disbursed. The Petition identifies the proposed
this reform expeditiously for reasons of Following closure of an account, the analytical changes filed in this docket as
administrative efficiency, it is Register will treat any funds remaining Proposal Seven.
separating this minor proposed change in that account, or subsequent deposits
II. Proposal Seven
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
from a larger ongoing rulemaking, that would otherwise be attributable to
that calendar year, as attributable to the Background. The Proposal Seven
12 17 U.S.C. 1005. succeeding calendar year. objective is to ‘‘reorganize Cost Segment
13 See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1), 119(b)(1), 122(a)(5), 3 and certain mail processing cost pools
1003(c). 17 Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License
14 37 CFR 201.11(f)(1), 201.17(k)(1), 201.28(h)(1).
Reporting Practices, 82 FR 56926, 56935–36 (Dec. 1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
15 Id. 1, 2017). the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
16 Electronic Payment of Royalties, 71 FR 45739 18 Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven),
(Aug. 10, 2006). Reporting Practices, 83 FR 26229 (Jun. 6, 2018). June 29, 2018 (Petition).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32202/page/1.svg)
![32070 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
to reflect operational changes and to MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the errors within LCUS operations and also
better classify clerk and mail handler current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well facilitate computation of operation-specific
work activities.’’ Petition at 1. as the NDC SSM cost pool. piggyback costs. Id. at 8.
Since its inception, the current Cost 6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC 6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC
and NDC NMO cost pools. and NDC NMO cost pools. ‘‘[T]here are no
Segment 3 methodology has divided 7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS other valid plant operations remaining in the
clerk and mail handler costs into costs OTH cost pools such that the former includes MECPARC cost pool after the universal sorter
incurred at ‘‘MODS’’ offices, NDCs and all applicable parcel (TPH) operations, operations have been gathered into the new
‘‘non-MODS’’ facilities. Petition, limiting the latter to bundle (NATPH) LCUS–SSM cost pool.’’ New automated
Proposal Seven at 1. Within each office operations. parcel equipment would be assigned to the
group, the Cost Segment 3 model 8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail APBSPRIO cost pool. Therefore, ‘‘there will
divides mail processing activities into distribution operations from the OTHR cost be no valid workhours for the NDC NMO cost
activity-based cost pools. Id. The cost pool to the MANP cost pool. (footnote pool going forward.’’ Id. at 9.
omitted) 7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS
pools allow for distinct causal 9. Employ non-MODS methodology to OTH cost pools. Moving minor parcel
assignments of volume-variable costs to assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools, operations with a small number of workhours
products for activities with distinct including costs pools currently in the MODS from APBS OTH to APBSPRIO will be
product mixes and/or distinct roles in office group. (footnote omitted) consistent with the treatment of other parcel
the mail processing system. Id. The 10. Realign facility space categories and operations and reinforce the conceptual
Postal Service states ‘‘[i]mprovements to distribution keys in conjunction with labor definition of APBS as the automated bundle
the non-MODS cost methodology cost changes. sorting cost pool. Id.
introduced activity-based mail 8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail
Id. at 3–4. distribution operations from the OTHR cost
processing cost pools which currently Rationale and impact: The Postal pool to the MANP cost pool. ‘‘[T]reating these
offer finer activity detail than the Service lists separately the rationale for operations as part of the MANP distribution
corresponding MODS cost pools.’’ Id. at each revision in Proposal Seven as cost pool will reduce the possibility that
2. The Postal Service notes: follows: mixed-mail costs will be distributed to non-
The primary operational distinction is 1. Redefine the ‘‘MODS’’ office group to parcels and/or parcel products that receive
between ‘‘Function 1’’ mail processing (i.e. include only MODS-reporting plants, with automated processing.’’ Id. at 10.
mail processing at plants) and ‘‘Function 4’’ other offices assigned to non-MODS group. 9. Employ non-MODS methodology to
activities (processing, window service, and Redefinition will ‘‘make it easier to analyze assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools,
other activities at customer service facilities mail processing costs at post offices, stations, including cost pools currently in the MODS
including post offices, stations, and and branches under a common set of cost office group. This will simplify report of
branches) and that [a] significant aim of this pools. The offices that are proposed to shift Function 4 costs that are currently spread
proposal is to align the Cost Segment 3 office to the non-MODS group, [are] nearly all of across cost pools in the two office groups
groups with this operational distinction, and the mail processing costs which are in defined similarly and reduce cases where
to provide a common set of cost pools for ‘‘Function 4’’ (LDC41–49) cost pools.’’ Id. at costs from similar activities may be treated
reporting Function 4 costs based on the non- 5. This will provide a more consistent differently based on their office group. Id. at
MODS cost pools. treatment of Function 4 costs. ‘‘Currently, 10. ‘‘[T]he larger effective sample sizes from
costs for otherwise similar activities— combining MODS Function 4 tallies with
Id. particularly manual mail processing at non-MODS should result in little or no
The Postal Service states ‘‘[m]ail customer service facilities—may be treated adverse effect on the coefficients of variation
processing cost pools also require differently depending on whether they occur (CVs) for the sample-based cost estimates.’’
periodic revision to maintain at a MODS or non-MODS finance number.’’ Id. at 11.
consistency with Postal Service Id. at 6. 10. Realign facility space categories and
operations. This proposal includes 2. Consolidate LDC15LCREM operations in distribution keys in conjunction with labor
several mail processing cost pool cost pool LD15PLNT into the D/BCS cost cost changes. ‘‘[U]nder the proposed
pool. The Low-Cost Reject Encoding Machine methodology, labor cost pool consolidations
changes intended to improve the
(LCREM) cost pool is assigned to a small cost would require corresponding consolidations
treatment of certain new equipment, as pool and will be included with other LCREM of associated facility space distribution keys
well as to prepare for the eventual operations already included in LDC 11, and associated space costs (and square
withdrawal of other equipment from currently part of the much larger D/BCS cost footage).’’ Id.
service.’’ Id. at 2–3. pool. Id. at 6. The Postal Service’s estimate of the effect
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes 3. Consolidate FSM/1000 into AFSM 100 on product costs is presented in Table 1 in
the following actions to reorganize cost pool. This is to provide for the phase- the Excel file attached to the Petition. The
MODS and non-MODS office groups for out of remaining operations for UFSM 1000 Postal Service states ‘‘[t]he Cost Segment 3
the Cost Segment 3 model, and to revise equipment. Continuing decline is expected impact includes the effects of the proposal on
certain mail processing cost pools for and the activity in FSM/1000 cost pools no the Mail Processing, Window Service, and
longer has a material effect on mail Administrative components[,]’’ as well as
MODS plant and NDCs (formerly
processing costs. Id. at 6–7. ‘‘revisions to distribution keys for
BMCs): 4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool piggybacked costs[,]’’ which ‘‘may variously
1. Redefine the ‘‘MODS’’ office group to (MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100 reinforce or offset the direct impact on Cost
include only MODS-reporting plants, with cost pool. This is to harmonize treatment of Segment 3 labor costs.’’ The impact is small
other offices assigned to the non-MODS 1FLATPRP (MODS operation 035) with other in most cases. Id. at 12.
group. (footnote omitted) flat preparation operations in the Cost
2. Consolidate LDC 15 LCREM operations Segment 3.1 model. The declining scale of III. Notice and Comment
(currently in cost pool LD15PLNT) into the remaining FSM/10000 operations no longer The Commission establishes Docket
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
D/BCS cost pool. justifies separate treatment of 1FLATPRP. Id. No. RM2018–10 for consideration of
3. Consolidate the FSM/1000 cost pool into at 7. matters raised by the Petition. More
the AFSM100 cost pool. 5. Collect operations for the low-Cost
information on the Petition may be
4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack sorting
(MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100 Machine in new LCUS–SSM cost pools for accessed via the Commission’s website
cost pool. MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the at http://www.prc.gov. Interested
5. Collect operations for the Low-Cost current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well persons may submit comments on the
Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack Sorting as the NDC SSM cost pool. Consolidation Petition and Proposal Seven no later
Machine in new LCUS–SSM cost pools for should limit the potential impact of clocking than September 5, 2018. Pursuant to 39
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32202/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32071
U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster is COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL any comment received to its public
designated as an officer of the QUALITY docket. Do not submit electronically any
Commission (Public Representative) to information you consider to be
represent the interests of the general 40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, Confidential Business Information (CBI)
public in this proceeding. 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508 or other information whose disclosure is
[Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001] restricted by statute. Multimedia
IV. Ordering Paragraphs submissions (e.g., audio, video) must be
RIN 0331–AA03 accompanied by a written comment.
It is ordered:
The written comment is considered the
1. The Commission establishes Docket Update to the Regulations for
official comment and should include
No. RM2018–10 for consideration of the Implementing the Procedural
discussion of all points you wish to
matters raised by the Petition of the Provisions of the National
make.
United States Postal Service for the Environmental Policy Act
Comments may also be submitted by
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider AGENCY: Council on Environmental mail. Send your comments to: Council
Proposed Changes in Analytical Quality (CEQ). on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson
Principles (Proposal Seven), filed June ACTION: Advance notice of proposed Place NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attn:
29, 2018. rulemaking; extension of comment Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001.
2. Comments by interested persons in period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
this proceeding are due no later than SUMMARY: On June 20, 2018, the Council Edward A. Boling, Associate Director for
September 5, 2018. on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the National Environmental Policy Act,
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the published an advance notice of Council on Environmental Quality, 730
Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC
to serve as an officer of the Commission ‘‘Update to the Regulations for 20503. Telephone: (202) 395–5750.
(Public Representative) to represent the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
interests of the general public in this of the National Environmental Policy
20, 2018, CEQ published an ANPRM
docket. Act.’’ The CEQ is extending the
titled ‘‘Update to the Regulations for
comment period on the ANPRM, which
4. The Secretary shall arrange for Implementing the Procedural Provisions
was scheduled to close on July 20, 2018,
publication of this Order in the Federal of the National Environmental Policy
for 31 days until August 20, 2018. The
Register. Act’’ in the Federal Register (83 FR
CEQ is making this change in response
28591). The original deadline to submit
By the Commission. to public requests for an extension of
comments was July 20, 2018. This
Ruth Ann Abrams, the comment period.
action extends the comment period for
DATES: Comments should be submitted
Acting Secretary. 31 days to ensure the public has
on or before August 20, 2018. sufficient time to review and comment
[FR Doc. 2018–14768 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, on the ANPRM. Written comments
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
identified by docket identification should be submitted on or before
number CEQ–2018–0001 through the August 20, 2018.
Federal eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Mary B. Neumayr,
instructions for submitting comments. Chief of Staff, Council on Environmental
Once submitted, comments cannot be Quality.
edited or removed from https:// [FR Doc. 2018–14821 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
www.regulations.gov. CEQ may publish BILLING CODE 3225–F8–P
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:54 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM 11JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_32202/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-10 23:53:58
Document Modified: 2018-07-10 23:53:58
| 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 5, 2018. | |
| Contact | David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 32069 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR