Rate Adjustment Product, 43134-43135 [2015-17782]
Download as PDF
43134
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR
58812). The supplemental letter dated
February 4, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of July, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015–17651 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. R2013–10R; Order No. 2586]
Rate Adjustment Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent court of appeals remand of its
decision concerning implementation of
the Full Service IMb requirements. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: August 3,
2015. Reply comments are due: August
14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
12, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued its opinion in United
States Postal Service v. Postal
Regulatory Commission, 785 F.3d 740
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(D.C. Cir. 2015). The court denied in
part and granted in part a Postal Service
petition for review of the Commission’s
November 21, 2013 order denying
implementation of the Full Service IMb
requirements for failure to comply with
39 U.S.C. 3622(d).1 785 F.3d at 744.
On July 8, 2015, the court issued its
mandate remanding the case to the
Commission. This order establishes
procedures on remand and solicits
comments on the standard to be applied
when considering whether mail
preparation changes are changes in rates
with respect to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d).
Background. On September 26, 2013,
the Postal Service filed notice of its
planned priced adjustment for market
dominant products.2 The Postal
Service’s Notice and proposed rate
increases failed to account for the
planned implementation of the Full
Service IMb requirements. Previously,
on April 18, 2013, the Postal Service
revised its Domestic Mail Manual to
modify the eligibility requirements for
mailers to qualify for automation FirstClass, Standard, Periodicals, and
Package Services rates. 78 FR 23137
(April 18, 2013). Full Service IMb was
now required to qualify for automation
rates, where previously mailers could
qualify for automation rates by using
either Full Service IMb or Basic IMb.
This change in the mail preparation
requirement for automation rates was
scheduled to take place on January 26,
2014. Id. However, in its Notice, the
Postal Service failed to adjust its billing
determinants to account for the effects
on the price cap calculation of the Full
Service IMb requirements.
After considering the Postal Service’s
responses to information requests and
comments from interested parties, the
Commission issued Order No. 1890,
finding that the Full Service IMb
requirements ‘‘constitute a classification
change with rate implications pursuant
to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(A) and 39 CFR
3010.23(d).’’ Order No. 1890 at 2.
Accordingly, as the Postal Service failed
to account for the deletion and
redefinition of rate cells as a result of
the Full Service IMb requirement when
adjusting its billing determinants for
First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals,
the Commission found that the
proposed rate adjustments exceeded the
price cap.3 As a result, the Commission
1 Order on Price Adjustments for Market
Dominant Products and Related Mail Classification
Changes, November 21, 2013 (Order No. 1890).
2 United States Postal Service Notice of MarketDominant Price Adjustment, September 26, 2013
(Notice).
3 Id. at 5. The Postal Service made adjustments to
the billing determinants to account for the effects
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
gave the Postal Service the option either
to defer implementation of the Full
Service IMb requirements or to submit
an amended notice of rate adjustment
that included billing determinants
adjusted to account for the effects of the
new requirements. Id. at 36. The Postal
Service chose to defer implementation
of the Full Service IMb requirements
and filed an appeal with the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals.4
The court’s opinion. On appeal the
court affirmed the Commission’s
authority to determine when mail
preparation changes affect the
application of the price cap.
Specifically, the court found that
[t]he Commission’s interpretation of the
statute prevents the Postal Service from
evading the price cap by shifting mailpieces
to higher rates through manipulation of its
mail preparation requirements. The
Commission’s interpretation is therefore
consistent with the price cap’s language and
purpose, and the Commission’s delegated
authority to administer the cap. 785 F.3d at
751.
The court nevertheless concluded that
the Commission’s exercise of its
authority was arbitrary and capricious
for failing to ‘‘articulate a
comprehensible standard for the
circumstances in which a change to
mail preparation requirements such as
the one in this case will be considered
a ‘change in rates.’ ’’ Id. at 753. In the
court’s view, the Commission failed to
properly explain the standard it was
applying to determine when a mail
preparation change constituted a price
change. Id. at 754. Thus, it granted the
Postal Service’s petition in part and
remanded the case to the Commission to
‘‘enunciate an intelligible standard and
then reconsider its decision in light of
that standard.’’ Id. at 756.
Request for comment. As directed by
the court, the Commission will proceed
to enunciate the standard applied to
determine when mail preparation
changes have rate effects with price cap
implications, based on its expertise and
past decisions considering similar
changes. The Commission requests
comments to afford all interested
persons an opportunity to provide input
on the standard used by the
Commission.
In conducting its analysis of whether
a mail preparation change constitutes a
rate change, the Commission will
evaluate the following four factors: (1)
Whether the change alters a basic
characteristic of a mailing, (2) the effect
of the Full Service IMb requirements on the price
cap calculation for Package Services.
4 Response of the United States Postal Service to
Order No. 1890, November 29, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
of the change on mailers, (3) the
purpose of the change, and 4) whether
the change results in a shift in volume
of mail from one rate category to
another. Each of these factors is weighed
individually and the Commission
intends to apply these factors to the Full
Service IMb requirements in the
decision on remand.
In assessing the first factor, whether a
mail preparation change alters a basic
characteristic of a mailing, the
Commission considers the following
characteristics: (a) Whether the change
modifies the size, weight, or content of
eligible mail, (b) whether the change
alters the presentation and/or
preparation of the mailing in a
substantial way, (c) regularity of the
change (periodic vs. one-time), (d)
magnitude of the change, and (e) the
complexity of the change relating to
mailer behavior.
For the second factor, the Commission
evaluates the following components to
determine the effect of the mail
preparation requirement on mailers: (a)
Whether the change imposes fixed or
variable costs, (b) the effect on high
volume and low volume mailers, (c) the
number of mailers affected, (d) the
volume of mail affected, (e) the benefits
to mailers, and (f) the timeframe for
mailers to comply with the change.
In considering the purpose of the
change, the Commission examines
whether the change: (a) Improves the
expeditious collection, transportation,
and/or delivery of the mail, (b) aligns
with changes in the Postal Service’s
network and/or equipment, and (c) is
intended to increase a price.
For the final factor, the Commission
takes into account whether the change
in mail preparation requirements causes
a shift in volume of mail from one rate
category to another. This factor
considers whether the changes result in
the de facto elimination of a rate
category or the deletion of a rate cell.
These factors are intended to serve as
a guide for a case-by-case analysis to
determine whether a mail preparation
change is a rate change with price cap
implications. In the absence of explicit
statutory definitions for determining
when a mail preparation change
constitutes a rate change with respect to
39 U.S.C. 3622(d), commenters are
invited to provide any views on whether
the four factors listed above (i.e., alter a
basic characteristic of a mailing, effect
on mailers, purpose of change, and shift
volumes between rate cells) adequately
set forth the parameters of mail
preparation requirement changes to be
examined to determine whether a
change in mail preparation
requirements has rate effects with price
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
cap implications. Accordingly, to ensure
that the Postal Service and other
interested persons have an opportunity
to provide input on the standard used
by the Commission, the Commission
solicits comments from interested
persons on the four factors listed above
and their components. Initial comments
are due no later than August 3, 2015.
Reply comments are due no later than
August 14, 2015. All comments must be
filed under Docket No. R2013–10R.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. R2013–10R to consider issues on
remand.
2. Kenneth E. Richardson will
continue to serve as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
3. Initial comments addressing the
Commission’s standard to determine
when mail preparation changes have
rate effects with price cap implications
are due no later than August 3, 2015.
4. Reply comments addressing matters
raised in initial comments are due no
later than August 14, 2015.
5. All comments and other documents
related to issues on remand must be
filed under Docket No. R2013–10R.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–17782 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
43135
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Notice of Commission Action
III. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
On July 14, 2015, the Postal Service
filed notice that it has entered into an
additional Global Expedited Package
Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service
agreement (Agreement).1
To support its Notice, the Postal
Service filed a copy of the Agreement,
a copy of the Governors’ Decision
authorizing the product, a certification
of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a),
and an application for non-public
treatment of certain materials. It also
filed supporting financial workpapers.
II. Notice of Commission Action
The Commission establishes Docket
No. CP2015–102 for consideration of
matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s filing is
consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or
3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR
part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due
no later than July 22, 2015. The public
portions of the filing can be accessed via
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov).
The Commission appoints Cassie
D’Souza to serve as Public
Representative in this docket.
III. Ordering Paragraphs
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CP2015–102; Order No. 2587]
New Postal Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing concerning
an additional Global Expedited Package
Services 3 negotiated service agreement.
This notice informs the public of the
filing, invites public comment, and
takes other administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: July 22,
2015.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
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.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. CP2015–102 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Postal Service’s
Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Cassie
D’Souza is appointed to serve as an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in this
proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than
July 22, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–17783 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing
a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited
Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreement
and Application for Non-Public Treatment of
Materials Filed Under Seal, July 14, 2015 (Notice).
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43134-43135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17782]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. R2013-10R; Order No. 2586]
Rate Adjustment Product
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent court of appeals remand of
its decision concerning implementation of the Full Service IMb
requirements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites
public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: August 3, 2015. Reply comments are due: August
14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing
Online system at https://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: On May 12, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in
United States Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission, 785 F.3d
740 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The court denied in part and granted in part a
Postal Service petition for review of the Commission's November 21,
2013 order denying implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements
for failure to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3622(d).\1\ 785 F.3d at 744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Order on Price Adjustments for Market Dominant Products and
Related Mail Classification Changes, November 21, 2013 (Order No.
1890).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2015, the court issued its mandate remanding the case to
the Commission. This order establishes procedures on remand and
solicits comments on the standard to be applied when considering
whether mail preparation changes are changes in rates with respect to
39 U.S.C. 3622(d).
Background. On September 26, 2013, the Postal Service filed notice
of its planned priced adjustment for market dominant products.\2\ The
Postal Service's Notice and proposed rate increases failed to account
for the planned implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements.
Previously, on April 18, 2013, the Postal Service revised its Domestic
Mail Manual to modify the eligibility requirements for mailers to
qualify for automation First-Class, Standard, Periodicals, and Package
Services rates. 78 FR 23137 (April 18, 2013). Full Service IMb was now
required to qualify for automation rates, where previously mailers
could qualify for automation rates by using either Full Service IMb or
Basic IMb. This change in the mail preparation requirement for
automation rates was scheduled to take place on January 26, 2014. Id.
However, in its Notice, the Postal Service failed to adjust its billing
determinants to account for the effects on the price cap calculation of
the Full Service IMb requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Postal Service Notice of Market-Dominant Price
Adjustment, September 26, 2013 (Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the Postal Service's responses to information
requests and comments from interested parties, the Commission issued
Order No. 1890, finding that the Full Service IMb requirements
``constitute a classification change with rate implications pursuant to
39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(A) and 39 CFR 3010.23(d).'' Order No. 1890 at 2.
Accordingly, as the Postal Service failed to account for the deletion
and redefinition of rate cells as a result of the Full Service IMb
requirement when adjusting its billing determinants for First-Class,
Standard, and Periodicals, the Commission found that the proposed rate
adjustments exceeded the price cap.\3\ As a result, the Commission gave
the Postal Service the option either to defer implementation of the
Full Service IMb requirements or to submit an amended notice of rate
adjustment that included billing determinants adjusted to account for
the effects of the new requirements. Id. at 36. The Postal Service
chose to defer implementation of the Full Service IMb requirements and
filed an appeal with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at 5. The Postal Service made adjustments to the billing
determinants to account for the effects of the Full Service IMb
requirements on the price cap calculation for Package Services.
\4\ Response of the United States Postal Service to Order No.
1890, November 29, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court's opinion. On appeal the court affirmed the Commission's
authority to determine when mail preparation changes affect the
application of the price cap. Specifically, the court found that
[t]he Commission's interpretation of the statute prevents the Postal
Service from evading the price cap by shifting mailpieces to higher
rates through manipulation of its mail preparation requirements. The
Commission's interpretation is therefore consistent with the price
cap's language and purpose, and the Commission's delegated authority
to administer the cap. 785 F.3d at 751.
The court nevertheless concluded that the Commission's exercise of
its authority was arbitrary and capricious for failing to ``articulate
a comprehensible standard for the circumstances in which a change to
mail preparation requirements such as the one in this case will be
considered a `change in rates.' '' Id. at 753. In the court's view, the
Commission failed to properly explain the standard it was applying to
determine when a mail preparation change constituted a price change.
Id. at 754. Thus, it granted the Postal Service's petition in part and
remanded the case to the Commission to ``enunciate an intelligible
standard and then reconsider its decision in light of that standard.''
Id. at 756.
Request for comment. As directed by the court, the Commission will
proceed to enunciate the standard applied to determine when mail
preparation changes have rate effects with price cap implications,
based on its expertise and past decisions considering similar changes.
The Commission requests comments to afford all interested persons an
opportunity to provide input on the standard used by the Commission.
In conducting its analysis of whether a mail preparation change
constitutes a rate change, the Commission will evaluate the following
four factors: (1) Whether the change alters a basic characteristic of a
mailing, (2) the effect
[[Page 43135]]
of the change on mailers, (3) the purpose of the change, and 4) whether
the change results in a shift in volume of mail from one rate category
to another. Each of these factors is weighed individually and the
Commission intends to apply these factors to the Full Service IMb
requirements in the decision on remand.
In assessing the first factor, whether a mail preparation change
alters a basic characteristic of a mailing, the Commission considers
the following characteristics: (a) Whether the change modifies the
size, weight, or content of eligible mail, (b) whether the change
alters the presentation and/or preparation of the mailing in a
substantial way, (c) regularity of the change (periodic vs. one-time),
(d) magnitude of the change, and (e) the complexity of the change
relating to mailer behavior.
For the second factor, the Commission evaluates the following
components to determine the effect of the mail preparation requirement
on mailers: (a) Whether the change imposes fixed or variable costs, (b)
the effect on high volume and low volume mailers, (c) the number of
mailers affected, (d) the volume of mail affected, (e) the benefits to
mailers, and (f) the timeframe for mailers to comply with the change.
In considering the purpose of the change, the Commission examines
whether the change: (a) Improves the expeditious collection,
transportation, and/or delivery of the mail, (b) aligns with changes in
the Postal Service's network and/or equipment, and (c) is intended to
increase a price.
For the final factor, the Commission takes into account whether the
change in mail preparation requirements causes a shift in volume of
mail from one rate category to another. This factor considers whether
the changes result in the de facto elimination of a rate category or
the deletion of a rate cell.
These factors are intended to serve as a guide for a case-by-case
analysis to determine whether a mail preparation change is a rate
change with price cap implications. In the absence of explicit
statutory definitions for determining when a mail preparation change
constitutes a rate change with respect to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d), commenters
are invited to provide any views on whether the four factors listed
above (i.e., alter a basic characteristic of a mailing, effect on
mailers, purpose of change, and shift volumes between rate cells)
adequately set forth the parameters of mail preparation requirement
changes to be examined to determine whether a change in mail
preparation requirements has rate effects with price cap implications.
Accordingly, to ensure that the Postal Service and other interested
persons have an opportunity to provide input on the standard used by
the Commission, the Commission solicits comments from interested
persons on the four factors listed above and their components. Initial
comments are due no later than August 3, 2015. Reply comments are due
no later than August 14, 2015. All comments must be filed under Docket
No. R2013-10R.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2013-10R to consider
issues on remand.
2. Kenneth E. Richardson will continue to serve as an officer of
the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of
the general public in this proceeding.
3. Initial comments addressing the Commission's standard to
determine when mail preparation changes have rate effects with price
cap implications are due no later than August 3, 2015.
4. Reply comments addressing matters raised in initial comments are
due no later than August 14, 2015.
5. All comments and other documents related to issues on remand
must be filed under Docket No. R2013-10R.
6. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17782 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P