83 FR 52154 - Mail Preparation Changes
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 200 (October 16, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 200 (October 16, 2018)
| Page Range | 52154-52157 | |
| FR Document | 2018-22477 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 52154-52157] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-22477] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3010 [Docket No. RM2016-6; Order No. 4850] Mail Preparation Changes AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a final rule concerning mail preparation changes. The rule as adopted removes reference to procedures relying on the existence of a substantive standard for mail preparation changes in response to the recent decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018). DATES: Effective November 15, 2018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 52155]] Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background III. Review of Comments IV. Commission Analysis V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis VI. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction In this Order, the Commission adopts a final rule concerning mail preparation changes. The final rule partially rescinds an existing Commission rule and is located at 39 CFR part 3010. The rule as adopted removes reference to procedures relying on the existence of a substantive standard for mail preparation changes in response to the recent decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018). II. Background In Order No. 3047, the Commission developed a substantive standard to determine when a mail preparation change would constitute a ``change in rates'' under 39 U.S.C. 3622.\1\ The standard established by the Commission in Order No. 3047 provided that mail preparation changes could have rate effects when they resulted in the deletion or redefinition of a rate cell as set forth by Sec. 3010.23(d)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The standard in Order No. 3047 was developed in response to remand from 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 (D.C. Cir. 2015). For a complete history of the proceedings underlying the Commission's promulgation of a standard for mail preparation changes, see 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); 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 conjunction with Order No. 3047, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to develop procedures to ensure that the Postal Service properly applies the Commission's standard when making a determination of whether a mail preparation change has a rate effect.\2\ The final rule created a process that required the Postal Service to: (1) Provide public notice of all mail preparation changes in a single source; (2) affirmatively designate whether or not a change to a mail preparation requirement implicates the price cap; and (3) show by a preponderance of the evidence, if the designation is challenged, that the price cap does not apply to the change.\3\ The Postal Service filed petitions for review challenging the Commission's standard in Order No. 3047 and the final rule in Order No. 4393. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation Changes, January 25, 2018, at 22-23 (Order No. 4393). The Order Adopting Final Procedural Rule for Mail Preparation Changes was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2018. See 83 FR 4585 (Feb. 1, 2018). \3\ See Petition for Review, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018); Petition for Review, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, No. 18- 1059 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shortly after the Commission adopted the final rule in this docket, the Court issued its decision in United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018) vacating the Commission's standard in Order No. 3047. In response to the Court's decision, the Commission and the Postal Service filed a joint motion to remand the petition for review of the final rule back to the Commission for further proceedings.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Unopposed Motion to Remand Case, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm'n, No. 18-1059 (D.C. Cir. May 10, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 9, 2018, the Commission issued the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), setting forth a proposed rescission to the rule set forth in Sec. 3010.23(d)(5) that created procedures concerning mail preparation changes.\5\ The NPR also provided an opportunity for public comment. Order No. 4751 at 5. The Commission proposed removing the components of the rule that require existence of a standard in order to be enforced, specifically: (1) The affirmative designation requirement; and (2) the evidentiary standard. Id. at 4. As explained in the NPR, both the affirmative designation and evidentiary burden parts of the rule were predicated on the existence of a substantive standard. Id. As that standard was vacated and a new standard does not yet exist, the proposed rule removed the affirmative designation requirement and evidentiary burden component from paragraph (d)(5) of this section. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to retain the publication requirement of the rule as it would remain independent of any standard. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, August 9, 2018 (Order No. 4751). On the same day, the Commission filed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek proposals for a new standard and process to determine when a mail preparation change requires price cap compliance in accordance with the Court's decision vacating the standard. Docket No. RM2018-11, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, August 9, 2018 (Order No. 4750). The ANPR was published in the Federal Register, see 83 FR 40485 (Aug. 15, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Review of Comments On September 13, 2018, the Commission received comments in response to the NPR from the Association for Postal Commerce (PostCom), the Postal Service, and the Public Representative.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Comments of the Association for Postal Commerce, September 13, 2018 (PostCom Comments); United States Postal Service Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 13, 2018 (Postal Service Comments); Public Representative Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 13, 2018 (PR Comments). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PostCom Comments. PostCom supports the premise behind partial rescission of the rule, acknowledging that the rule referencing a standard ``cannot be enforced in the absence of a standard.'' PostCom Comments at 1. However, PostCom does not support rescission of the rule at this time. Id. Instead, PostCom suggests the Commission ``temporarily suspend enforcement of the portion of the rule that the Commission is proposing to eliminate.'' Id. To support its request for the Commission to temporarily suspend enforcement of the rule as opposed to rescission through rulemaking, PostCom points to the Commission's intention to develop an appropriate standard in a separate rulemaking.\7\ PostCom submits that elimination of the portion of the rule relying on a substantive standard is unnecessary because the current procedures ``will apply equally well to the final standard established by the Commission.'' PostCom Comments at 2. PostCom states that the procedures only rely on the ``existence of'' a substantive standard and not the contents of that substantive standard. Id. at 3. PostCom points to the fact that the Commission itself indicated the separation between the substantive standard and the applicability of the final procedural rule, noting that the Commission stated that the Court's disagreement with the substantive standard would not affect the final rule. Id. As a result, PostCom submits that it is ``imprudent to eliminate these procedures at this time'' and that elimination of the rule now will only require more rulemaking in the future should the Commission set a new standard. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Id. at 2 (citing Order No. 4751 at 4; Order No. 4750). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postal Service Comments. The Postal Service supports partial rescission of the rule that relies on existence of a substantive standard. Postal Service Comments at 1-3. In the Postal Service's view, ``compliance with the procedural rule necessarily would require application of the substantive standard'' for mail preparation changes. Id. at 2. The Postal Service agrees with the Commission's proposal to rescind the portion of the rule that ``requires the [[Page 52156]] Postal Service affirmatively to designate whether a given mail preparation change requires compliance with the price cap rules'' and the portion concerning the evidentiary burden. Id. The Postal Service also indicates that it has already complied with the publication requirement that the Commission proposes to retain in the rule. Id. at 3. Public Representative Comments. The Public Representative supports the Commission's proposal to rescind portions of the procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes ``subject to reinstatement depending upon the outcome of the Commission's review of the applicable standard for determining whether a rate increase is in compliance with Sec. 3010.23(d)(2).'' PR Comments at 1-2. He notes that it would be futile to require the Postal Service to affirmatively designate whether a change requires compliance with Sec. 3010.23(d)(2) when there is no standard to measure compliance. Id. at 7. With respect to the evidentiary portion of the rule, requiring the Postal Service to provide by a preponderance of the evidence that a mail preparation change does not require compliance with Sec. 3010.23(d)(2), he contends that compliance with this provision would be ``a very difficult proposition without any standard to serve as a target.'' Id. at 8. Further, parties would be ``unable to determine the information needed to rebut the Postal Service's determination'' without an operative standard. Id. The Public Representative also supports the Commission's retention of the single source reporting requirement. Id. at 5-6. IV. Commission Analysis The comments reflect general support for the removal of portions of the procedural rule concerning mail preparation changes that rely on the existence of a substantive standard. PostCom suggests an alternative procedure to temporarily suspend enforcement of the rule as opposed to formally rescinding portions of this rulemaking. When promulgating the final rule concerning mail preparation changes, the Commission intended for it to apply regardless of how the Court modified the standard. Order No. 4393 at 14. However, the Court did not modify the standard, it vacated it in its entirety. The components of the procedural rule in Sec. 3010.23(d)(5) requiring the Postal Service to provide an affirmative designation of compliance and setting an evidentiary burden require the existence of a standard. While the Commission has initiated an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to gather proposals for a new standard, the Commission cannot predict the outcome of those proceedings. See Order No. 4750. Although PostCom may be correct that a temporary suspension of a procedural rule is within the Commission's authority, a rulemaking is more appropriate for the present situation. As this procedural rule was promulgated via notice and comment rulemaking, the Commission will use the same process to rescind a major portion of the rule.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S.Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015) (citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009) (Section 1 of the Administrative Procedure Act mandates that ``agencies use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance.'')). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, the Commission adopts a final rule that rescinds two components of the rule requiring an affirmative designation and evidentiary burden. For the affirmative designation portion of the rule, the Postal Service would be unable to designate whether a particular mail preparation change requires compliance with Sec. 3010.23(d)(2) because it no longer has a standard to apply to determine compliance. Similarly, the Postal Service could not show it made a correct determination by a preponderance of the evidence without having a standard. Parties would also be unable to rebut the Postal Service's determination with information absent a standard. For these reasons, removing those portions of the rule is appropriate. The remaining part of the rule requires the Postal Service to provide published notice of all mail preparation changes in a single source. The Commission retains this portion of the rule because it provides notice and transparency for all mail preparation changes and does not rely on existence of a standard.\9\ As noted in the NPR, the Postal Service has complied with this requirement and the Postal Service states in its comments that it will continue to comply with this portion of the rule. Accordingly, the Commission revises Sec. 3010.23(d)(5) to require the Postal Service to publish notice of all mail preparation changes in a single, publically available source. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See also Order No. 4393 at 8-10 (justification for the reporting requirement). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies, in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1980). If the proposed or final rules will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may certify that the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Commission's primary responsibility is in the regulatory oversight of the United States Postal Service. The rules that are the subject of this rulemaking have an impact on participation in Commission proceedings, but impose no further financial obligation upon any entity. For entities other than the United Stated Postal Service, participation is strictly voluntary. Based on these findings, the Chairman of the Commission certifies that the rules that are the subject of this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. VI. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. Part 3010 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is revised as set forth below the signature of this Order, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3010 Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Part 3010--REGULATION OF RATES FOR MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS 0 1. The authority citation of part 3010 continues to read as follows: Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3662. 0 2. Amend Sec. 3010.23 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows: Sec. 3010.23 Calculation of percentage change in rates. * * * * * (d) * * * (5) Procedures for mail preparation changes. The Postal Service shall [[Page 52157]] provide published notice of all mail preparation changes in a single, publicly available source. The Postal Service shall file notice with the Commission of the single source it will use to provide published notice of all mail preparation changes. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2018-22477 Filed 10-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
![52154 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(2) A pre-1972 sound recording is a (h) Fee. The filing fee to submit a (3) A certification that the
sound recording fixed before February schedule of pre-1972 sound recordings transmitting entity was publicly
15, 1972. pursuant to this section is prescribed in performing pre-1972 sound recordings
(c) Form and submission. A rights § 201.3(c). by means of digital audio transmission
owner seeking to comply with 17 U.S.C. (i) Third-party notification. A person as of October 11, 2018.
1401(f)(5)(A) must submit a schedule may request timely notification of (4) A certification that the individual
listing the owner’s pre-1972 sound filings made under this section by submitting the notice has appropriate
recordings using an appropriate form following the instructions provided by authority to submit the notice and that
provided by the Copyright Office on its the Copyright Office on its website. all information submitted to the Office
website and following the instructions ■ 5. Add § 201.36 to read as follows: is true, accurate, and complete to the
for completion and submission best of the individual’s knowledge,
provided on the Office’s website or the § 201.36 Notices of contact information for information, and belief, and is made in
form itself. The Office may reject any transmitting entities publicly performing good faith.
submission that fails to comply with pre-1972 sound recordings. (5) The transmitting entity may opt to
these requirements. (a) General. This section prescribes include alternate names for which the
(d) Content. A schedule of pre-1972 the rules under which transmitting transmitting entity seeks application of
sound recordings shall contain the entities may file contact information 17 U.S.C. 1401(f)(5)(B)(iii), such as
following: with the Copyright Office pursuant to 17 names that the public would be likely
(1) For each sound recording listed, U.S.C. 1401(f)(5)(B). to use to search for the transmitting
the right’s owner name, sound recording (b) Definitions. For purposes of this entity in the Copyright Office’s online
title, and featured artist; section: directory of transmitting entities
(2) A certification that the individual (1) Unless otherwise specified, the publicly performing pre-1972 sound
submitting the schedule of pre-1972 terms used have the meanings set forth recordings by means of digital audio
sound recordings has appropriate in 17 U.S.C. 1401. transmission, including names under
authority to submit the schedule and (2) A pre-1972 sound recording is a which the transmitting entity is doing
that all information submitted to the sound recording fixed before February business and other commonly used
Office is true, accurate, and complete to 15, 1972. names. Separate legal entities are not
the best of the individual’s knowledge, (3) A transmitting entity is an entity considered alternate names.
information, and belief, and is made in that, as of October 11, 2018, publicly (e) Fee. The filing fee to submit a
good faith. performs pre-1972 sound recordings by notice of contact information pursuant
(3) For each sound recording listed, means of digital audio transmission. to this section is prescribed in
the rights owner may opt to include (c) Form and submission. A § 201.3(c).
additional information as permitted and transmitting entity seeking to comply Dated: October 11, 2018.
in the format specified by the Office’s with 17 U.S.C. 1401(f)(5)(B) must Karyn A. Temple,
form or instructions, such as publication submit contact information using an Acting Register of Copyrights and Director
date, or alternate title information. appropriate form specified by the of the U.S. Copyright Office.
(e) Transfer of rights ownership. If Copyright Office on its website and
Approved by:
ownership of a pre-1972 sound following the instructions for
completion and submission provided on Carla D. Hayden,
recording changes after its inclusion in
a schedule filed with the Office under the Office’s website or the form itself. Librarian of Congress.
this section, the Office will consider the The Office may reject any submission [FR Doc. 2018–22518 Filed 10–15–18; 8:45 am]
schedule to be effective as to any that fails to comply with these BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
successor in interest. A successor in requirements. No notice or amended
interest may, but is not required, to file notice received after April 9, 2019 will
a new schedule under this section. be accepted by the Office. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
(f) Legal sufficiency of schedules. The (d) Content. A notice submitted under
Copyright Office does not review paragraph (c) of this section shall 39 CFR Part 3010
schedules submitted under paragraph contain the following, in addition to any [Docket No. RM2016–6; Order No. 4850]
(c) of this section for legal sufficiency, other information required on the
interpret their content, or screen them Office’s form or website: Mail Preparation Changes
for errors or discrepancies. The Office’s (1) The full legal name, email address,
review is limited to whether the and physical street address of the AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
procedural requirements established by transmitting entity to which rights ACTION: Final rule.
the Office (including payment of the owners should send notifications of
SUMMARY: The Commission adopts a
proper filing fee) have been met. Rights claimed violations of 17 U.S.C. 1401(a).
final rule concerning mail preparation
owners are therefore cautioned to A post office box may not be substituted
changes. The rule as adopted removes
review and scrutinize schedules to for the street address of a transmitting
reference to procedures relying on the
assure their legal sufficiency before entity. Related or affiliated transmitting
existence of a substantive standard for
submitting them to the Office. entities that are separate legal entities
mail preparation changes in response to
(g) Filing date. The date of filing of a (e.g., corporate parents and subsidiaries)
the recent decision in United States
schedule of pre-1972 sound recordings are considered separate transmitting
Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, 886
is the date when a proper submission, entities, and each must file its own
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
including the prescribed fee, is received separate notice of contact information.
in the Copyright Office. The filing date DATES: Effective November 15, 2018.
(2) The website(s) and/or
may not necessarily be the same date application(s) through which the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
that the schedule, for purposes of 17 transmitting entity publicly performs David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
U.S.C. 1401(f)(5)(A)(i)(II), is indexed pre-1972 sound recordings by means of 202–789–6820.
into the Office’s public records. digital audio transmission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Oct 15, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM 16OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_52354/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 52157
provide published notice of all mail DC. The Public Reading Room is open County and Monroe County as
preparation changes in a single, publicly from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday attainment/unclassifiable areas. The
available source. The Postal Service through Friday, excluding legal EPA is adding those counties to the
shall file notice with the Commission of holidays. The telephone number for the regulatory table, consistent with the
the single source it will use to provide Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, rulemaking record for the April 30,
published notice of all mail preparation and the telephone number for the Office 2018, ozone designations rule. The EPA
changes. of Air and Radiation Docket and is also moving the entry for ‘‘Bond
* * * * * Information Center is (202) 566–1742. County’’ so that it will be listed in
[FR Doc. 2018–22477 Filed 10–15–18; 8:45 am] In addition, the EPA has established alphabetical order and, thus, will be
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
a website for the ozone designation listed before the entry for ‘‘Boone
rulemakings at https://www.epa.gov/ County.’’
ozone-designations. The website
includes the EPA’s final designations, as McHenry County, Illinois, is part of
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-
well as designation recommendation
AGENCY Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI), Combined
letters from states and tribes, the EPA’s
120-letters notifying the states whether Statistical Area (CSA).1 The EPA’s final
40 CFR Part 81 Technical Support Document (TSD) for
the EPA intends to modify the state’s
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0548; FRL–9985–35– recommendation, technical support the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
OAR] documents, responses to comments and nonattainment area states that, ‘‘EPA’s
other related technical information. area of analysis is the Chicago-
RIN 2060–AU29
Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA, which
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Air Quality Designations for the 2015 includes the following 19 counties:
Denise Scott, Office of Air Quality
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Bureau, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy,
Planning and Standards, U.S.
Standards; Corrections Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code C539–01, Research Triangle Park, McHenry, Putnam, and Will in Illinois,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Jasper, Lake, LaPorte, Newton, and
Agency (EPA). NC 27711, phone number (919) 541–
4280 or by email at: scott.denise@ Porter in Indiana, and Kenosha in
ACTION: Correcting amendments. Wisconsin. The EPA applied the five
epa.gov.
factors recommended in its guidance to
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the area of analysis to determine the
Agency (EPA) is correcting errors in the nonattainment boundary.’’ In the TSD
regulatory text regarding the designation I. What are the errors being corrected?
section, ‘‘Conclusion for the Chicago, IL-
of certain areas in nine states for the This rule corrects errors in the
IN-WI Area,’’ the EPA identified the
2015 ozone national ambient air quality regulatory text designating certain areas
portions of Illinois that were being
standards (NAAQS). The designation for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as provided
designated as part of the nonattainment
rules were signed by the EPA in the designation rules signed by the
area and stated, ‘‘All remaining Illinois
Administrator on November 6, 2017, EPA Administrator on November 6,
portions of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-
and April 30, 2018. The errors include 2017 (November 16, 2017; 82 FR 54232),
IN-WI CSA are designated consistent
typographical and formatting errors and and on April 30, 2018 (June 4, 2018; 83
with the Illinois’ recommendations as
the omission from the regulatory tables FR 25776). The EPA is correcting the
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015
of several counties designated as errors consistent with the rulemaking
record. The affected areas are located in ozone NAAQS: Bureau, DeKalb,
attainment/unclassifiable. The EPA is Kankakee, LaSalle, McHenry, and
correcting the errors consistent with the California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania Putnam Counties.* * *’’ The EPA’s
rulemaking record. The affected areas final TSD for the Chicago-Naperville, IL-
are located in California, Illinois, and Virginia. The corrections for each
state are discussed below and the IN-WI nonattainment area is located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, the docket for the April 30, 2018,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. corrected regulatory text is provided at
the end of this action. designations rule (document number
DATES: The effective date of this rule is EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0418) and is
November 15, 2018. California the key document setting forth the
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a The EPA is correcting two errors in designations for the Chicago-Naperville,
docket for the designation actions for the regulatory table for California for IL-IN-WI CSA.
the 2015 ozone NAAQS under Docket designations promulgated in the April Monroe County, Illinois, is part of the
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0548. All 30, 2018, ozone designations rule. The St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois (MO-IL) Core
documents in the docket are listed in EPA is moving the entry for the ‘‘Butte Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The
the index at http://www.regulations.gov. County, CA’’ nonattainment area so that EPA’s final TSD for the St. Louis, MO-
Although listed in the index, some the area will be listed in alphabetical IL nonattainment area states, ‘‘The EPA
information is not publicly available, order and, thus, will be listed before the
i.e., Confidential Business Information entry for the ‘‘Calaveras County, CA’’ 1 Lists of Core Based Statistical Areas and
or other information whose disclosure is nonattainment area. The EPA is also Combined Statistical Areas and their geographic
restricted by statute. Certain other correcting a typographical error in the components are provided at https://
material, such as copyrighted material, entry for the ‘‘Pechanga Band of Luiseño www.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-micro/
is not placed on the internet and will be about/omb-bulletins.html. The Office of
Mission Indians of the Pechanga Management and Budget (OMB) adopts standards
publicly available only in hard copy
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Reservation’’ nonattainment area by for defining statistical areas. The statistical areas are
form. Publicly available docket revising ‘‘Pu’eskaMountain’’ to read delineated based on United States Census Bureau
materials are available either ‘‘Pu’eska Mountain.’’ data. The lists are periodically updated by the
electronically in the docket or in hard OMB. The EPA used the July 2015 update (OMB
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA Illinois Bulletin No. 15–01), which is based on application
of the 2010 OMB standards to the 2010 Census,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 The EPA is correcting the regulatory 2006–2010 American Community Survey, as well as
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, table for Illinois to include McHenry 2013 Population Estimates Program data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:24 Oct 15, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM 16OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_52354/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-15 23:42:24
Document Modified: 2018-10-15 23:42:24
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | Effective November 15, 2018. | |
| Contact | David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 52154 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure and Postal Service |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR