83 FR 52178 - Periodic Reporting
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 200 (October 16, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 200 (October 16, 2018)
| Page Range | 52178-52179 | |
| FR Document | 2018-22457 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 52178-52179] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-22457] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2019-1; Order No. 4849] Periodic Reporting AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Eight). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: November 9, 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 Eight [[Page 52179]] III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On October 5, 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 Eight. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Eight), October 5, 2018 (Petition). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Proposal Eight Background. The Postal Service seeks to modify the modeling methodology in First-Class Mail and Marketing Mail Letter cost models to reflect current operational flows. Petition, Proposal Eight at 1. The Postal Service states that Proposal Eight relates to the Commission's directive in the FY 2017 Annual Compliance Determination Report for the Postal Service to ``provide a plan to move the passthrough toward 100 percent'' for USPS Marketing Mail Automation Letters Barcoding.\2\ The Postal Service states Proposal Eight ``aligns the barcode cost avoidance and the associated passthrough with the Commission's directive.'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Id. Docket No. ACR2017, Annual Compliance Determination Report, March 29, 2018, at 26. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Postal Service states that it developed its current mail processing letter cost models when cancellation equipment had limited functionality. Id. at 2. The outgoing primary scheme could not isolate mail for all automated area distribution centers (AADCs), and mail for low volume AADCs flowed to the outgoing secondary scheme. Id. The Postal Service states that due to advances in Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology, its Advanced Facer Canceller System (AFCS) is now able to read addresses and isolate locally-processed mail from mail destinating in the service territory of other processing facilities. Id. This capability eliminated the need for local separations on outgoing primary schemes, or the processing of pre- barcoded mail on the outgoing secondary scheme. Id. The Postal Service states the result is an increased quantity of mail processed on the outgoing primary scheme. Id. at 2-3. Proposal. The Postal Service proposes three operational and methodological changes: (1) Modification of models to reflect current operational flows; (2) correction of the exclusion of mechanical rejects from the Input Sub System (ISS); and (3) removal of the conflation of differential flows between Output Sub System (OSS) operations and automation barcode sortation (BCS) operations in the Marketing Mail Letters cost model. Id. at 3. The Postal Service states that modification 1 aligns the current operational flows of automation pre-barcoded Mixed AADC (MAADC) mail with modeled automation mail. Id. at 4. The modification changes the inflow of 10,000 pieces of modeled mail from the outgoing secondary entry point. Id. The Postal Service states that the ``modification directly impacts only the Automation MAADC Presort Letters and Cards categories.'' Id. The Postal Service states that the current letter models do not account for mechanical rejects that flow to manual operations. Id. The Postal Service states that the delivery BCS (DBCS) Input Output Sub System (DIOSS) reject rate is composed of the OSS rate of rejects flowing to manual operations. Id. Modification 2 ``corrects the DIOSS operations' treatment of rejects to that of traditional OSS/ISS operations for treatment of pieces flowing to manual operations and to OSS operations.'' Id. The Postal Service suggests that the current Marketing Mail Letters cost model, calculating the barcode cost avoidance as the difference between modeled (Non-Automation) Machinable MAADC letters and Automation MAADC letters, ``conflates the value of the barcode with intrinsic differences between non-barcoded and automation mail.'' Id. at 5. Modification 3 corrects the model for machinable MAADC mail by using the same down flow densities as automation MAADC mail, ``thereby accurately estimating the value of a barcode when used as a benchmark.'' Id. The Postal Service states that this modification applies only to Marketing Mail Letters. Id. at 6. Rationale and impact. The Postal Service states that it intends for the proposal to modify the letter processing models to reflect ``current operational reality.'' Id. at 1. The Postal Service states that the proposal would increase the barcode cost avoidance of Marketing Mail Automation MAADC letters from $0.001 to $0.006, while reducing the passthrough from 1300 percent to 217 percent. Id. at 6. The Postal Service provides the change in mail processing unit costs for Marketing Mail Letters and First-Class Mail Letters and Cards. Id. at 7-8. III. Notice and Comment The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019-1 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 Eight no later than November 9, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Katalin K. Clendenin 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. RM2019-1 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 Eight), filed October 5, 2018. 2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than November 9, 2018. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin 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. Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018-22457 Filed 10-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
![52178 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Office also seeks input on any model 8. Please describe specific steps that Depending on the feedback received,
methods of search. Specifically: should constitute a reasonable search the Office will either issue an interim
1. What would constitute a reasonable for a recording on an identified service. rule, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
search of the Office’s database of Pre- Should the steps be service-specific or with further request for comment.
1972 Schedules, which will index would a single list of steps be adequate Dated: October 11, 2018.
information including the name of the for any identified source? Is the
Regan A. Smith,
rights owner, title, and featured artist for description of a qualifying search
General Counsel and Associate Register of
each sound recording filed on a described by the 2008 bill referenced
Copyrights.
schedule? above useful in defining whether a user
[FR Doc. 2018–22516 Filed 10–15–18; 8:45 am]
2. Please suggest specific ‘‘services has conducted a reasonable search to
determine whether a work is being BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
offering a comprehensive set of sound
recordings for sale or streaming’’ that commercially exploited?
users should be asked to reasonably B. Filing of Notices of Pre-1972
search before qualifying for the safe POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Noncommercial Use and Pre-1972 Opt-
harbor. Out Notices 39 CFR Part 3050
3. Which criteria should be used to
identify music streaming services that The Office also seeks written [Docket No. RM2019–1; Order No. 4849]
should be searched, now and in the comments on how it should ‘‘establish
future? For example, one publication the form, content, and procedures’’ for Periodic Reporting
recently analyzed search requests for users to file Notices of Pre-1972
Noncommercial Use and rights owners AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
music providers, and determined that
to file Pre-1972 Opt-Out Notices. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
the most frequently searched services
were YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Specifically:
1. Should the Office provide SUMMARY: The Commission is
Apple Music, Pandora, and Spotify.21 Is acknowledging a recent filing requesting
this a reasonable list, or should the guidelines as to what constitutes a
‘‘noncommercial’’ use, and if so, what? the Commission initiate a rulemaking
Office consider different and/or proceeding to consider changes to
additional analytics, such as catalog In answering, consider that ‘‘merely
recovering costs of production and analytical principles relating to periodic
size, number of listeners, or inclusion reports (Proposal Eight). This document
into indexes such as Nielsen Music? To distribution of a sound recording
resulting from a use otherwise permitted informs the public of the filing, invites
that end, Billboard recently added the public comment, and takes other
iHeartRadio subscription stream to under this subsection does not itself
necessarily constitute a commercial use administrative steps.
various streaming-inclusive charts,22
of the sound recording,’’ and ‘‘the fact DATES: Comments are due: November 9,
and other services, such as SiriusXM,
that a person engaging in the use of a 2018.
Deezer, Bandcamp, SoundCloud, and
Tidal provide music to millions of sound recording also engages in ADDRESSES: Submit comments
users. commercial activities does not itself electronically via the Commission’s
4. Is it reasonable to expect a user’s necessarily render the use Filing Online system at http://
search to encompass music distribution commercial.’’ 23 For example, should www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
services, such as CD Baby, TuneCore, or the online use of a work where the user comments electronically should contact
The Orchard? receives website advertising revenue be the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
5. Are there other sources to which considered ‘‘commercial’’? Should a INFORMATION CONTACT section by
the Office should look that may prospective user be asked to disclose telephone for advice on filing
demonstrate commercialization of whether they are an individual, or alternatives.
physical copies of recordings, e.g., vinyl whether they will operate as a
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
records or compact discs? commercial or noncommercial entity?
2. To what extent should a user be David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
6. Are there other specialized services 202–789–6820.
required to specify the nature of the use,
or salesfronts regarding particular SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
such as the expected audience, duration
genres or eras within the category of
of the use, and whether it will be online Table of Contents
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings that should
or limited to a particular geographic
be considered by the Office? I. Introduction
area?
7. How many sources should a user be 3. How should the user be required to II. Proposal Eight
required to search before qualifying for certify or describe the steps taken for a
the safe harbor? In responding, please search to constitute a ‘‘good faith, Instructions for Completing and Submitting
consider that the Office must Schedules of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, U.S.
reasonable search’’? How detailed Copyright Office, https://copyright.gov/music-
promulgate a ‘‘reasonable’’ list of steps, should any description be? In modernization/pre1972-soundrecordings/
but in a way that does not overlook responding, the Office encourages schedulefiling-instructions.html (instructions on
commercialization of Pre-1972 sound commenters to consider other forms and filing Pre-1972 Schedules); Requirements and
recordings. Instructions for Completing and Submitting Notices
procedures offered by the Office, which of Contact Information For Transmitting Entities
reflect operational considerations by the Publicly Performing Pre-1972 Sound Recordings,
21 Daniel Sanchez, We Asked a Search Analytics
Office, as well as the resources U.S. Copyright Office, https://copyright.gov/music-
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Company to Tell Us the Most Popular Music modernization/pre1972-soundrecordings/contact
Services, Digital Music News (June 11, 2018), described above.24 information-instructions.html (instructions on filing
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/06/11/ notices of contact information for transmitting
most-popular-music-services/. 23 17U.S.C. 1401(C)(2). entities publicly performing Pre-1972 Sound
22 Billboard Staff, Pandora & iHeartRadio 24 See,
e.g., Document Recordation: Completing Recordings); Modernizing Copyright Recordation,
Subscription Streams to Be Added to Billboard and Submitting Declarations of Ownership in 82 FR 52213 (Nov. 13, 2017) (issuing interim rule
Charts, Billboard (June 25, 2018), https:// Musical Works, U.S. Copyright Office, https:// amending regulations governing recordation of
www.billboard.com/articles/news/8462711/ www.copyright.gov/recordation/domw/# transfers of copyright ownership, other documents
pandora-iheartradio-subscription-streams-added- requirements (instructions on filing Declarations of pertaining to a copyright, and notices of
billboard-charts. Ownership in Musical Works); Requirements and termination).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Oct 15, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM 16OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_52378/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 52179
III. Notice and Comment System (ISS); and (3) removal of the information on the Petition may be
IV. Ordering Paragraphs conflation of differential flows between accessed via the Commission’s website
I. Introduction Output Sub System (OSS) operations at http://www.prc.gov. Interested
and automation barcode sortation (BCS) persons may submit comments on the
On October 5, 2018, the Postal Service operations in the Marketing Mail Letters Petition and Proposal Eight no later than
filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR cost model. Id. at 3. November 9, 2018. Pursuant to 39
3050.11 requesting that the Commission The Postal Service states that U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates
initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modification 1 aligns the current Katalin K. Clendenin as an officer of the
consider changes to analytical operational flows of automation pre- Commission (Public Representative) to
principles relating to periodic reports.1 barcoded Mixed AADC (MAADC) mail represent the interests of the general
The Petition identifies the proposed with modeled automation mail. Id. at 4. public in this proceeding.
analytical changes filed in this docket as The modification changes the inflow of
Proposal Eight. 10,000 pieces of modeled mail from the IV. Ordering Paragraphs
II. Proposal Eight outgoing secondary entry point. Id. The It is ordered:
Postal Service states that the 1. The Commission establishes Docket
Background. The Postal Service seeks ‘‘modification directly impacts only the No. RM2019–1 for consideration of the
to modify the modeling methodology in Automation MAADC Presort Letters and matters raised by the Petition of the
First-Class Mail and Marketing Mail Cards categories.’’ Id. United States Postal Service for the
Letter cost models to reflect current The Postal Service states that the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
operational flows. Petition, Proposal current letter models do not account for Proposed Changes in Analytical
Eight at 1. The Postal Service states that mechanical rejects that flow to manual Principles (Proposal Eight), filed
Proposal Eight relates to the operations. Id. The Postal Service states October 5, 2018.
Commission’s directive in the FY 2017 that the delivery BCS (DBCS) Input 2. Comments by interested persons in
Annual Compliance Determination Output Sub System (DIOSS) reject rate this proceeding are due no later than
Report for the Postal Service to ‘‘provide is composed of the OSS rate of rejects November 9, 2018.
a plan to move the passthrough toward flowing to manual operations. Id. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
100 percent’’ for USPS Marketing Mail Modification 2 ‘‘corrects the DIOSS Commission appoints Katalin K.
Automation Letters Barcoding.2 The operations’ treatment of rejects to that of Clendenin to serve as an officer of the
Postal Service states Proposal Eight traditional OSS/ISS operations for Commission (Public Representative) to
‘‘aligns the barcode cost avoidance and treatment of pieces flowing to manual represent the interests of the general
the associated passthrough with the operations and to OSS operations.’’ Id. public in this docket.
Commission’s directive.’’ Id. The Postal Service suggests that the 4. The Secretary shall arrange for
The Postal Service states that it current Marketing Mail Letters cost publication of this Order in the Federal
developed its current mail processing model, calculating the barcode cost Register.
letter cost models when cancellation avoidance as the difference between By the Commission.
equipment had limited functionality. Id. modeled (Non-Automation) Machinable
at 2. The outgoing primary scheme Stacy L. Ruble,
MAADC letters and Automation
could not isolate mail for all automated MAADC letters, ‘‘conflates the value of Secretary.
area distribution centers (AADCs), and the barcode with intrinsic differences [FR Doc. 2018–22457 Filed 10–15–18; 8:45 am]
mail for low volume AADCs flowed to between non-barcoded and automation BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
the outgoing secondary scheme. Id. mail.’’ Id. at 5. Modification 3 corrects
The Postal Service states that due to the model for machinable MAADC mail
advances in Optical Character by using the same down flow densities ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Recognition (OCR) technology, its as automation MAADC mail, ‘‘thereby AGENCY
Advanced Facer Canceller System accurately estimating the value of a
(AFCS) is now able to read addresses barcode when used as a benchmark.’’ Id. 40 CFR Part 721
and isolate locally-processed mail from The Postal Service states that this [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2017–0575; FRL–9984–93]
mail destinating in the service territory modification applies only to Marketing
of other processing facilities. Id. This RIN 2070–AB27
Mail Letters. Id. at 6.
capability eliminated the need for local Rationale and impact. The Postal
separations on outgoing primary Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Service states that it intends for the
schemes, or the processing of pre- Chemical Substances
proposal to modify the letter processing
barcoded mail on the outgoing models to reflect ‘‘current operational AGENCY: Environmental Protection
secondary scheme. Id. The Postal reality.’’ Id. at 1. The Postal Service Agency (EPA).
Service states the result is an increased states that the proposal would increase ACTION: Proposed rule.
quantity of mail processed on the the barcode cost avoidance of Marketing
outgoing primary scheme. Id. at 2–3. Mail Automation MAADC letters from SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes $0.001 to $0.006, while reducing the new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic
three operational and methodological passthrough from 1300 percent to 217 Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 13
changes: (1) Modification of models to percent. Id. at 6. The Postal Service chemical substances which are the
reflect current operational flows; (2) provides the change in mail processing subject of premanufacture notices
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
correction of the exclusion of unit costs for Marketing Mail Letters (PMNs). This action would require
mechanical rejects from the Input Sub and First-Class Mail Letters and Cards. persons to notify EPA at least 90 days
Id. at 7–8. before commencing manufacture
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
(defined by statute to include import) or
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed III. Notice and Comment processing of any of these 13 chemical
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Eight),
October 5, 2018 (Petition). The Commission establishes Docket substances for an activity that is
2 Id. Docket No. ACR2017, Annual Compliance No. RM2019–1 for consideration of designated as a significant new use by
Determination Report, March 29, 2018, at 26. matters raised by the Petition. More this proposed rule. If this proposed rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Oct 15, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16OCP1.SGM 16OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_52378/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-15 23:42:10
Document Modified: 2018-10-15 23:42:10
| 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: November 9, 2018. | |
| Contact | David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 52178 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR