83 FR 40485 - Mail Preparation Changes

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 158 (August 15, 2018)

Page Range		40485-40487
FR Document		2018-17498
The Commission is initiating a review to determine when a mail preparation change is a rate change. This document informs the public of the docket's initiation, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40485-40487]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17498]


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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3010

[Docket No. RM2018-11; Order No. 4750]


Mail Preparation Changes

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is initiating a review to determine when a mail 
preparation change is a rate change. This document informs the public 
of the docket's initiation, invites public comment, and takes other 
administrative steps.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 15, 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. Background
III. Request for Comments

I. Introduction

    The Commission initiates this advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPR) to seek proposals for a standard and process to determine when a 
mail preparation change is a ``changes in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622 
in accordance with the recent decision in United States Postal Serv. v. 
Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (IMb Opinion).

II. Background

    The Commission continues to maintain that certain mail preparation 
changes are rate changes, and those changes should be regulated under 
39 U.S.C. 3622. As participants in past associated dockets are aware, 
the issues involved in regulating mail preparation changes as ``changes 
in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622 are varied and complex. The process 
involved in crafting a workable standard for regulating mail 
preparation changes under the price cap has been difficult and time-
consuming. However, this difficulty does not necessarily render the 
efforts to create a standard futile. Accordingly, the Commission issues 
this ANPR requesting proposals from commenters for a standard and 
process to determine when an individual mail preparation change is a 
``change in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that is consistent with the 
recent guidance set forth in the IMb Opinion.
    In Docket No. R2013-10R, the Commission determined that a change to 
the Intelligent Mail barcoding (IMb) requirements was a rate change 
requiring compliance with the price cap under 39 U.S.C. 3622.\1\ The 
Postal Service appealed the Commission's determination to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the Court). In 
United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 785 F.3d 740, 751 
(D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court affirmed the Commission's conclusion that 
``changes in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622 could include changes to mail 
preparation requirements and were not limited to ``only changes to the 
official posted prices of each product.'' However, the Court remanded 
the matter to the Commission so that it could articulate an 
intelligible standard to determine when a mail preparation change was a 
``change in rates'' subject to the price cap. Id. at 744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket No. R2013-10, Order on Price Adjustments for Market 
Dominant Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, November 
21, 2013, at 5-35 (Order No. 1890). In this docket, the Commission 
briefly sets out the relevant history supporting the request for 
comment. For a complete history of the Commission proceedings 
leading up to this docket, please see Order No. 1890; Docket No. 
R2013-10R, Order Resolving Issues on Remand, January 22, 2016 (Order 
No. 3047); Docket No. R2013-10R, Order Resolving Motion for 
Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 3047, July 20, 2016 (Order 
No. 3441).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Court's remand, the Commission initiated 
proceedings to establish a standard to be used for the regulation of 
mail preparation changes as ``changes in rates.'' \2\ As a result of 
those proceedings, the Commission issued Order No. 3047, which set 
forth a standard to determine when a mail preparation change requires 
compliance with the price cap. The standard established in Order No. 
3047 provided that a mail preparation change could have a rate effect 
when it resulted in the deletion or redefinition of rate cells as set 
forth by Sec.  3010.23(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. R2013-10R, Order Establishing Procedures on 
Remand and Requesting Public Comment, July 15, 2015 (Order No. 
2586).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the standard set forth in Order No. 3047, the 
Commission used its regulation, Sec.  3010.23(d)(2), to provide the 
framework. Section 3010.23(d)(2) provides that a classification change 
will have a rate effect when it results in the introduction, deletion, 
or redefinition of a rate cell. Under the Commission's rules, the 
Postal Service must include the effects of those classification changes 
in its calculation of the percentage change in rates under the price 
cap. 39 CFR 3010.23(d)(2). The standard in Order No. 3047 defined when 
a mail preparation change would be considered a classification change 
with rate effects under Sec.  3010.23(d)(2). The standard set forth 
that deletion of a rate cell occurs when a mail preparation change 
caused the elimination of a rate, or the functional equivalent of an 
elimination of a rate by making the rate cell inaccessible to mailers. 
Order No. 3047 at 15. The standard defined redefinition of a rate cell 
to occur when a mail preparation change caused a significant change to 
a basic characteristic of a mailing, effectively changing the nature of 
the rate cell. For redefinition, the Commission stated that it would 
apply a significance analysis to determine at what point on the 
spectrum a mail preparation change caused a rate cell to be redefined 
under Sec.  3010.23(d)(2). Id.

[[Page 40486]]

at 16-17. Using these parameters, when a mail preparation change caused 
a rate cell to be deleted or redefined, it would constitute a rate 
change requiring compliance with the price cap.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In conjunction with Order No. 3047, the Commission initiated 
a separate rulemaking proceeding to develop a procedural rule that 
would ensure the Postal Service properly accounted for the rate 
effects of mail preparation changes in accordance with the 
Commission's standard articulated in Order No. 3047. Docket No. 
RM2016-6, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Motions Concerning Mail 
Preparation Changes, January 22, 2016, at 1-2 (Order No. 3048). The 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Motions Concerning Mail Preparation 
Changes was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016. 
See 81 FR 5085 (February 1, 2016). The rulemaking resulted in a 
final procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes. See 
Docket No. RM2016-6, Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail 
Preparation Changes, at 22-23, January 25, 2018 (Order No. 4393). 
The Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation 
Changes was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018. See 
83 FR 4585 (March 5, 2018). That rule is being revised as a result 
of the IMb Opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Order No. 3047 was issued, the Postal Service requested the 
Commission reconsider its decision.\4\ In response, the Commission 
issued Order No. 3441 resolving the Postal Service's request for 
reconsideration and maintaining the standard as articulated in Order 
No. 3047. The Postal Service then petitioned the Court for review of 
the revised standard set forth in Order Nos. 3047 and 3441.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Docket No. R2013-10R, Motion for Reconsideration of Order 
No. 3047, February 22, 2016.
    \5\ Petition for Review, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal 
Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court issued its decision and vacated the Commission's standard 
in Order Nos. 3047 and 3441. IMb Opinion at 1255. In its decision, the 
Court concluded that the Commission's standard to determine when a mail 
preparation change was a rate change rested on an unreasonable 
interpretation of ``changes in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that went 
beyond the meaning of the statute. Id.
    In its opinion, the Court referred to its previous decision in 2015 
to remand the matter to the Commission, stating that this decision 
``laid down a marker for what might qualify as rates and `changes in 
rates.' Time and again [it] tied `rates' to payments by mailers to the 
Postal Service, and `changes in rates' to changes in those payments.'' 
Id. at 1256. The Court explained that its 2015 decision affirmed the 
Commission's authority to regulate changes in posted prices and changes 
in mail preparation requirements because both could cause a change in 
rates paid by the mailer. Id. However, the Court vacated the 
Commission's standard set forth in Order No. 3047 because it viewed the 
standard as improperly regulating changes to mailers' costs as opposed 
to the price mailers pay. The Court stated that the standard cannot 
look ``solely to mailer costs . . . without comparing those costs to 
the additional payment a mailer would avoid by making the mail 
preparation change'' in order to predict whether mailers will pay a 
higher rate. Id. at 1260 (emphasis in original).
    Although the Court's IMb Opinion vacated the standard set forth by 
the Commission, it did not abrogate the Commission's authority to 
regulate mail preparation as ``changes in rates'' under the statute. 
Rather, the Court disagreed with the Commission's approach and found 
that the Commission's standard did not answer the question of whether a 
change to a mail preparation change would cause a mailer to pay a 
higher rate. The Court did not endorse any particular method to 
determine when a mail preparation change is a ``change in rates'' under 
39 U.S.C. 3622, but provided its views on approaches that could 
potentially conform to the statute.
    In order to find that a mail preparation change is a rate change 
under 39 U.S.C. 3622, the Court indicated that the standard should be 
able to ``single out mail preparation changes that induce mailers to 
shift to a higher-priced service.'' Id. at 1259. The Court suggested 
that the Commission could have ``tried to integrate mail preparation 
requirements into its authority over `changes in rates' with the 
following argument: Where an increase in mail preparation requirements 
for one cell will drive mailers to use a higher-priced cell, the 
resulting increase in volume in the latter should count against the 
rate cap.'' IMb Opinion at 1256 (emphasis in original). The Court 
qualified this opinion by stating that it identified ``this approach 
not in order to offer any final judgment on it but to indicate how 
treating a change in mail preparation requirements as a rate change 
might, as a matter of arithmetic, be integrated with the Commission's 
system of volumetric assessment.'' Id.
    As suggested by the Court, the standard must look to predict mailer 
behavior in response to the mail preparation change in order to 
``single out mail preparation changes that induce mailers to shift to a 
higher-priced service.'' Id. at 1259. To do so, the Court indicated 
that the Commission would have to compare mailers' compliance costs 
with the offsetting rate benefit in order to determine whether mailers 
would be driven to a higher rate cell and pay a higher rate. Id. at 
1260. The Court acknowledged the complexity of this potential approach, 
especially where the mailer ``costs (however estimated) would have to 
be compared with a benchmark--the rate increment faced by mailers--that 
would be quite precise.'' Id.
    In response to the IMb Opinion, the Commission is continuing to 
explore whether a workable standard can be developed in order to 
determine when a mail preparation change is a rate change. The 
Commission seeks comment on the possibility of crafting a standard that 
would not only comport with the Court's decision but also be workable 
in the context of the Commission's proceedings.

III. Request for Comments

    The Commission requests comments from interested parties to propose 
a standard and process to determine when a mail preparation change is a 
rate change under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that comports with the IMb Opinion. In 
proposing a new standard, commenters should respond to the parameters 
and guidance set forth by the Court in the recent IMb Opinion and 
explain how the suggested standard is consistent with those parameters. 
Specifically, commenters should propose a standard that could be used 
to predict ``possible mailer migration to higher-priced products'' to 
determine when a mail preparation change results in a ``change in 
rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622. In addition to comments proposing a 
standard in line with the IMb Opinion, commenters should propose a 
practical process for the Commission to determine and resolve disputes 
over whether a mail preparation change is a rate change.
    In creating a new docket for this proceeding, the Commission 
acknowledges that although the issue before the Commission centered on 
the Postal Service's change to the IMb requirements in Docket No. 
R2013-10, the standard eventually adopted by the Commission will apply 
to all future mail preparation changes. The Commission appreciates the 
complex nature of this issue and the input provided by commenters in 
previous attempts to establish a workable standard to regulate mail 
preparation changes as rate changes.
    Initial comments are due no later than 60 days after the date of 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. After reviewing 
the initial comments, the Commission will decide if reply comments are 
necessary. Commission rules require that comments (including reply 
comments) be filed online according to the process outlined at 39 CFR 
3001.9(a), unless a waiver is

[[Page 40487]]

obtained. Additional information regarding how to submit comments 
online can be found at: http://www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. All 
comments accepted will be made available on the Commission's website, 
http://www.prc.gov.
    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.
    It is ordered:
    1. Interested persons may submit initial comments no later than 60 
days from the date of the publication of this document in the Federal 
Register.
    2. 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.
    3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the 
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Stacy L. Ruble,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17498 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40485

otherwise placed together so as to form FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, 785 F.3d 740,
an enclosure of two or more sides, etc. David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 751 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court affirmed
(xi) No permit will be issued for a 202–789–6820. the Commission’s conclusion that
demonstration on the White House SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘changes in rates’’ under 39 U.S.C. 3622
Sidewalk and in Lafayette Park at the could include changes to mail
same time except when the Table of Contents preparation requirements and were not
organization, group, or other sponsor of I. Introduction limited to ‘‘only changes to the official
such demonstration undertakes in good II. Background posted prices of each product.’’
faith all reasonable action, including the III. Request for Comments However, the Court remanded the
provision of sufficient marshals, to matter to the Commission so that it
I. Introduction
insure good order and self-discipline in could articulate an intelligible standard
conducting such demonstration and any The Commission initiates this to determine when a mail preparation
necessary movement of persons, so that advance notice of proposed rulemaking change was a ‘‘change in rates’’ subject
the numerical limitations and waiver (ANPR) to seek proposals for a standard to the price cap. Id. at 744.
provisions described in paragraphs and process to determine when a mail In response to the Court’s remand, the
(g)(5)(ix) and (x) of this section are preparation change is a ‘‘changes in Commission initiated proceedings to
observed. rates’’ under 39 U.S.C. 3622 in establish a standard to be used for the
(xii) In addition to the general accordance with the recent decision in regulation of mail preparation changes
limitations in this paragraph (g)(5), United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. as ‘‘changes in rates.’’ 2 As a result of
sound systems shall be directed away Comm’n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018) those proceedings, the Commission
from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at (IMb Opinion). issued Order No. 3047, which set forth
all times. a standard to determine when a mail
(6) Permit revocation. The Regional II. Background preparation change requires compliance
Director or the ranking U.S. Park Police The Commission continues to with the price cap. The standard
supervisory official in charge may maintain that certain mail preparation established in Order No. 3047 provided
revoke a permit or part of a permit for changes are rate changes, and those that a mail preparation change could
any violation of its terms or conditions, changes should be regulated under 39 have a rate effect when it resulted in the
or if the event presents a clear and U.S.C. 3622. As participants in past deletion or redefinition of rate cells as
present danger to the public safety, good associated dockets are aware, the issues set forth by § 3010.23(d)(2).
order, or health, or for any violation of involved in regulating mail preparation In establishing the standard set forth
applicable law or regulation. Any such changes as ‘‘changes in rates’’ under 39 in Order No. 3047, the Commission
revocation shall be in writing. U.S.C. 3622 are varied and complex. used its regulation, § 3010.23(d)(2), to
* * * * * The process involved in crafting a provide the framework. Section
workable standard for regulating mail 3010.23(d)(2) provides that a
David L. Bernhardt, preparation changes under the price cap classification change will have a rate
Deputy Secretary. has been difficult and time-consuming. effect when it results in the
[FR Doc. 2018–17386 Filed 8–14–18; 8:45 am] However, this difficulty does not introduction, deletion, or redefinition of
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P necessarily render the efforts to create a a rate cell. Under the Commission’s
standard futile. Accordingly, the rules, the Postal Service must include
Commission issues this ANPR the effects of those classification
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION requesting proposals from commenters changes in its calculation of the
for a standard and process to determine percentage change in rates under the
39 CFR Part 3010 when an individual mail preparation price cap. 39 CFR 3010.23(d)(2). The
[Docket No. RM2018–11; Order No. 4750] change is a ‘‘change in rates’’ under 39 standard in Order No. 3047 defined
U.S.C. 3622 that is consistent with the when a mail preparation change would
Mail Preparation Changes recent guidance set forth in the IMb be considered a classification change
Opinion. with rate effects under § 3010.23(d)(2).
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. The standard set forth that deletion of
In Docket No. R2013–10R, the
ACTION:Advance notice of proposed Commission determined that a change a rate cell occurs when a mail
rulemaking. to the Intelligent Mail barcoding (IMb) preparation change caused the
SUMMARY: The Commission is initiating requirements was a rate change elimination of a rate, or the functional
a review to determine when a mail requiring compliance with the price cap equivalent of an elimination of a rate by
preparation change is a rate change. under 39 U.S.C. 3622.1 The Postal making the rate cell inaccessible to
This document informs the public of the Service appealed the Commission’s mailers. Order No. 3047 at 15. The
docket’s initiation, invites public determination to the United States Court standard defined redefinition of a rate
comment, and takes other of Appeals for the District of Columbia cell to occur when a mail preparation
administrative steps. (the Court). In United States Postal Serv. change caused a significant change to a
DATES: Comments are due on or before
basic characteristic of a mailing,
October 15, 2018.
1 Docket No. R2013–10, Order on Price
effectively changing the nature of the
Adjustments for Market Dominant Products and rate cell. For redefinition, the
ADDRESSES: Submit comments Related Mail Classification Changes, November 21,
Commission stated that it would apply
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

electronically via the Commission’s 2013, at 5–35 (Order No. 1890). In this docket, the
Commission briefly sets out the relevant history a significance analysis to determine at
Filing Online system at http:// supporting the request for comment. For a complete what point on the spectrum a mail
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit history of the Commission proceedings leading up preparation change caused a rate cell to
comments electronically should contact to this docket, please see Order No. 1890; Docket
be redefined under § 3010.23(d)(2). Id.
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER No. R2013–10R, Order Resolving Issues on Remand,
January 22, 2016 (Order No. 3047); Docket No.
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
R2013–10R, Order Resolving Motion for 2 Docket No. R2013–10R, Order Establishing
telephone for advice on filing Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 3047, Procedures on Remand and Requesting Public
alternatives. July 20, 2016 (Order No. 3441). Comment, July 15, 2015 (Order No. 2586).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Aug 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1
40486 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules

at 16–17. Using these parameters, when Order No. 3047 because it viewed the of this potential approach, especially
a mail preparation change caused a rate standard as improperly regulating where the mailer ‘‘costs (however
cell to be deleted or redefined, it would changes to mailers’ costs as opposed to estimated) would have to be compared
constitute a rate change requiring the price mailers pay. The Court stated with a benchmark—the rate increment
compliance with the price cap.3 that the standard cannot look ‘‘solely to faced by mailers—that would be quite
After Order No. 3047 was issued, the mailer costs . . . without comparing precise.’’ Id.
Postal Service requested the those costs to the additional payment a In response to the IMb Opinion, the
Commission reconsider its decision.4 In mailer would avoid by making the mail Commission is continuing to explore
response, the Commission issued Order preparation change’’ in order to predict whether a workable standard can be
No. 3441 resolving the Postal Service’s whether mailers will pay a higher rate. developed in order to determine when
request for reconsideration and Id. at 1260 (emphasis in original). a mail preparation change is a rate
maintaining the standard as articulated Although the Court’s IMb Opinion change. The Commission seeks
in Order No. 3047. The Postal Service vacated the standard set forth by the comment on the possibility of crafting a
then petitioned the Court for review of Commission, it did not abrogate the standard that would not only comport
the revised standard set forth in Order Commission’s authority to regulate mail with the Court’s decision but also be
Nos. 3047 and 3441.5 preparation as ‘‘changes in rates’’ under workable in the context of the
The Court issued its decision and the statute. Rather, the Court disagreed Commission’s proceedings.
vacated the Commission’s standard in with the Commission’s approach and
III. Request for Comments
Order Nos. 3047 and 3441. IMb Opinion found that the Commission’s standard
at 1255. In its decision, the Court did not answer the question of whether The Commission requests comments
concluded that the Commission’s a change to a mail preparation change from interested parties to propose a
standard to determine when a mail would cause a mailer to pay a higher standard and process to determine when
preparation change was a rate change rate. The Court did not endorse any a mail preparation change is a rate
rested on an unreasonable interpretation particular method to determine when a change under 39 U.S.C. 3622 that
of ‘‘changes in rates’’ under 39 U.S.C. mail preparation change is a ‘‘change in comports with the IMb Opinion. In
3622 that went beyond the meaning of rates’’ under 39 U.S.C. 3622, but proposing a new standard, commenters
the statute. Id. provided its views on approaches that should respond to the parameters and
In its opinion, the Court referred to its could potentially conform to the statute. guidance set forth by the Court in the
previous decision in 2015 to remand the In order to find that a mail recent IMb Opinion and explain how the
matter to the Commission, stating that preparation change is a rate change suggested standard is consistent with
this decision ‘‘laid down a marker for under 39 U.S.C. 3622, the Court those parameters. Specifically,
what might qualify as rates and ‘changes indicated that the standard should be commenters should propose a standard
in rates.’ Time and again [it] tied ‘rates’ able to ‘‘single out mail preparation that could be used to predict ‘‘possible
to payments by mailers to the Postal changes that induce mailers to shift to mailer migration to higher-priced
Service, and ‘changes in rates’ to a higher-priced service.’’ Id. at 1259. products’’ to determine when a mail
changes in those payments.’’ Id. at 1256. The Court suggested that the preparation change results in a ‘‘change
The Court explained that its 2015 Commission could have ‘‘tried to in rates’’ under 39 U.S.C. 3622. In
decision affirmed the Commission’s integrate mail preparation requirements addition to comments proposing a
authority to regulate changes in posted into its authority over ‘changes in rates’ standard in line with the IMb Opinion,
prices and changes in mail preparation with the following argument: Where an commenters should propose a practical
requirements because both could cause increase in mail preparation process for the Commission to
a change in rates paid by the mailer. Id. requirements for one cell will drive determine and resolve disputes over
However, the Court vacated the mailers to use a higher-priced cell, the whether a mail preparation change is a
Commission’s standard set forth in resulting increase in volume in the latter rate change.
should count against the rate cap.’’ IMb In creating a new docket for this
3 In conjunction with Order No. 3047, the Opinion at 1256 (emphasis in original). proceeding, the Commission
Commission initiated a separate rulemaking The Court qualified this opinion by acknowledges that although the issue
proceeding to develop a procedural rule that would stating that it identified ‘‘this approach before the Commission centered on the
ensure the Postal Service properly accounted for the Postal Service’s change to the IMb
rate effects of mail preparation changes in
not in order to offer any final judgment
accordance with the Commission’s standard on it but to indicate how treating a requirements in Docket No. R2013–10,
articulated in Order No. 3047. Docket No. RM2016– change in mail preparation the standard eventually adopted by the
6, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Motions requirements as a rate change might, as Commission will apply to all future
Concerning Mail Preparation Changes, January 22, a matter of arithmetic, be integrated mail preparation changes. The
2016, at 1–2 (Order No. 3048). The Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Motions Concerning Mail with the Commission’s system of Commission appreciates the complex
Preparation Changes was published in the Federal volumetric assessment.’’ Id. nature of this issue and the input
Register on February 1, 2016. See 81 FR 5085 As suggested by the Court, the provided by commenters in previous
(February 1, 2016). The rulemaking resulted in a standard must look to predict mailer attempts to establish a workable
final procedural rule concerning mail preparation
changes. See Docket No. RM2016–6, Order
behavior in response to the mail standard to regulate mail preparation
Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail preparation change in order to ‘‘single changes as rate changes.
Preparation Changes, at 22–23, January 25, 2018 out mail preparation changes that Initial comments are due no later than
(Order No. 4393). The Order Adopting Final induce mailers to shift to a higher- 60 days after the date of publication of
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation Changes was
published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018.
priced service.’’ Id. at 1259. To do so, this document in the Federal Register.
See 83 FR 4585 (March 5, 2018). That rule is being the Court indicated that the Commission After reviewing the initial comments,
revised as a result of the IMb Opinion. would have to compare mailers’ the Commission will decide if reply
4 Docket No. R2013–10R, Motion for
compliance costs with the offsetting rate comments are necessary. Commission
Reconsideration of Order No. 3047, February 22, benefit in order to determine whether rules require that comments (including
2016.
5 Petition for Review, United States Postal Serv. mailers would be driven to a higher rate reply comments) be filed online
v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. cell and pay a higher rate. Id. at 1260. according to the process outlined at 39
2018). The Court acknowledged the complexity CFR 3001.9(a), unless a waiver is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Aug 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40487

obtained. Additional information Indiana’s attainment demonstration and Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–3901,
regarding how to submit comments other elements required under the Clean becker.michelle@epa.gov.
online can be found at: http:// Air Act (CAA). In addition to an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. All attainment demonstration, the Throughout this document whenever
comments accepted will be made nonattainment plan addresses the ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
available on the Commission’s website, requirement for meeting reasonable EPA. The following outline is provided
http://www.prc.gov. further progress (RFP) toward to aid in locating information in this
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably preamble.
Richardson is designated as an officer of available control measures and
the Commission (Public Representative) reasonably available control technology Table of Contents
to represent the interests of the general (RACM/RACT), base-year and I. Why was Indiana required to submit an
public in this proceeding. projection-year emission inventories, SO2 plan for Indianapolis, Southwest
It is ordered: enforceable emissions limitations and Indiana, and Terre Haute?
1. Interested persons may submit control measures, and contingency II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area
initial comments no later than 60 days measures. EPA proposes to conclude Plans
from the date of the publication of this that Indiana has appropriately III. Requirements for Attainment
Demonstrations and Longer-Term
document in the Federal Register. demonstrated that the plan provisions Averaging
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 IV. Review of Indiana’s Modeled Attainment
Commission appoints Kenneth R. NAAQS in the Indianapolis, Southwest Plans
Moeller to serve as an officer of the Indiana, and Terre Haute areas by the A. Model Selection
Commission (Public Representative) to applicable attainment date and that the B. Meteorological Data
represent the interests of the general plan meets the other applicable C. Emissions Data
public in this docket. requirements under the CAA. D. Emission Limits
3. The Secretary shall arrange for 1. Enforceability
DATES: Comments must be received on 2. Longer Term Average Limits
publication of this Order in the Federal
or before September 14, 2018. E. Background Concentrations
Register.
F. Comments Made During State
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
By the Commission. Rulemaking
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– G. Summary of Results
Stacy L. Ruble,
OAR–2015–0700 at http:// V. Review of Other Plan Requirements
Secretary. www.regulations.gov, or via email to A. Emissions Inventory
[FR Doc. 2018–17498 Filed 8–14–18; 8:45 am] aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For B. RACM/RACT
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P comments submitted at Regulations.gov, C. New Source Review (NSR)
follow the online instructions for D. RFP
submitting comments. Once submitted, E. Contingency Measures
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comments cannot be edited or removed VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
AGENCY from Regulations.gov. For either manner VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
of submission, EPA may publish any
40 CFR Part 52 comment received to its public docket. I. Why was Indiana required to submit
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0700; FRL–9982– Do not submit electronically any an SO2 plan for Indianapolis,
28—Region 5] information you consider to be Southwest Indiana, and Terre Haute?
Confidential Business Information (CBI) On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Attainment or other information whose disclosure is new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75
Plan for Indianapolis, Southwest restricted by statute. Multimedia parts per billion (ppb), which is met at
Indiana, and Terre Haute SO2 submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be an ambient air quality monitoring site
Nonattainment Areas accompanied by a written comment. when the 3-year average of the annual
The written comment is considered the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
official comment and should include hour average concentrations does not
Agency (EPA).
discussion of all points you wish to exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
ACTION: Proposed rule. make. EPA will generally not consider accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection comments or comment contents located part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve outside of the primary submission (i.e. CFR 50.17(a)–(b). On August 5, 2013,
as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) on the web, cloud, or other file sharing EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of
revision an Indiana submission to EPA system). For additional submission the country as nonattainment for the
dated October 2, 2015. The submission methods, please contact the person 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the
addresses attainment of the 2010 sulfur identified in the FOR FURTHER Indianapolis (Marion County), Morgan
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air County, Southwest Indiana (Daviess and
quality standard (NAAQS) for the full EPA public comment policy, Pike Counties), and Terre Haute (Vigo
Indianapolis (Marion County), information about CBI or multimedia County) areas within Indiana. See 78 FR
Southwest Indiana (Daviess and Pike submissions, and general guidance on 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81,
Counties), and Terre Haute (Vigo making effective comments, please visit subpart C. These area designations were
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS

County) areas. Indiana also submitted a effective October 4, 2013. Section 191(a)
SIP revision request for the Morgan commenting-epa-dockets. of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs
County area. In this proposed action, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for areas designated as nonattainment
EPA is not addressing the Morgan Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18
County portion of the SIP revision Attainment Planning and Maintenance months of the effective date of the
request, and will address it separately in Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), designation, i.e., by no later than April
a future action. This plan (herein called Environmental Protection Agency, 4, 2015 in this case. Under CAA section
a ‘‘nonattainment plan’’) includes Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 192(a), the states are required to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 Aug 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM 15AUP1
Document Created: 2018-08-15 01:26:28
Document Modified: 2018-08-15 01:26:28
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		Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Comments are due on or before October 15, 2018.
Contact		David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
FR Citation		83 FR 40485