Periodic Reporting, 50815-50816 [2015-20633]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules Background FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 1297(b)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, the notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking (REG–108214–15) contains an error that is misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction to Publication Accordingly, the notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking, that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015–20468, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 50239, in the preamble, column 3, under the caption ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’, the last line of the first full paragraph, the language ‘‘topic by Wednesday, August 19, 2015’’ is corrected to read ‘‘topic by Wednesday, August 26, 2015’’. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. 2015–20849 Filed 8–19–15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR part 3050 [Docket No. RM2015–19; Order No. 2666] Periodic Reporting Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Ten). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: September 17, 2015. Reply Comments are due: September 28, 2015. 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. rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Proposal Ten III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On August 12, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes in analytical principles relating to periodic reports.1 Proposal Ten is attached to the Petition and proposes an analytical method change related to the proposed merger of Cost Segments 3 and 4 for purposes of constructing the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) Report. Petition at 1. II. Proposal Ten A. Background As background, the Postal Service explains that the historical reason for separation of Cost Segment 4, which requires costs for small post offices to be isolated and transparent, occurred when decisions to close some small post offices were under consideration. Id. Proposal Ten at 1. However, where postmasters (whose costs are reflected in Cost Segment 1) in small post offices (identified by the Postal Service as ‘‘CAG K’’ and ‘‘CAG L’’ offices) 2 may be doing all of the tasks with no clerks, it is difficult to use Cost Segment 4 to adequately measure labor costs at these post offices. Proposal Ten at 1. The In-Office Cost System (IOCS) maintains a separate panel for CAG K finance numbers that generally have one clerk. When the clerk is no longer there, no IOCS readings can be obtained and, as the number of IOCS reading of CAG K offices declines, the sampling variation increases until the sample is refreshed. Data suggest product costs in Cost Segment 4 are not statistically different from other small offices. Id. at 2. The Postal Service further explains that the POStPlan had potentially confusing impacts in Cost Segments 3 1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), August 12, 2015 (Petition). 2 ‘‘CAG’’ refers to ‘‘cost ascertainment group’’ and is a method used by the Postal Service that classifies post offices based on volume of revenue generated. CAG K offices have 36–189 revenue units, and CAG L offices have less than 36. See Glossary of Postal Terms available at https:// usps.com/publications/pub32. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 50815 and 4. The Postal Service indicates that Postmaster Reliefs working at POStPlan 3 post offices were subject to reductions in force as a result of a September 5, 2014, ruling on an American Postal Workers Union arbitration that required four-hour and six-hour post offices to be assigned to clerks. According to the Postal Service, the effect of the ruling is that clerk costs in Cost Segments 3 and 4 may complicate the analysis of the effects of POStPlan. Furthermore, the Postal Service explains that recent cost increases in Cost Segment 4 are the result of reclassifying postmaster positions and shifting these positions from Cost Segment 1 to clerks in Cost Segments 3 and 4. Id. at 3. B. Proposal Under the proposal, for Fiscal Year 2015, the IOCS would include data from CAG K and L post offices with data from CAG H and J post offices, and their trial balance amounts used as control totals for full-time and part-time clerks would be merged and treated as one stratum when refreshed. Id. at 3–4. Cost Segment 4 Trial Balance Accounts would be merged into the corresponding 5-digit accounts in Cost Segment 3, creating a revised ‘‘Cost Segment 3 & 4’’ worksheet. The Cost Segment 3 account numbers and titles would be retained and the CRA Component would be expanded to ‘‘253 & 42.’’ Other conforming Trial Balance worksheet changes would be made, but the merger will not affect the ‘‘Outputs to CRA’’ and ‘‘Product specific’’ tabs in the Trial Balance. Id. at 4. In the Cost Segment 3 B workpapers, CAG K and L clerk costs would be incorporated into the Trial Balance control for Cost Segment 3. These changes would combine former Cost Segment 4 with the non-MODS office group in Cost Segment 3, and subject the mail processing, window service, and administrative activities at CAG K and L offices to the accepted cost methodology for each component. Id. Cost Segment 3 output spreadsheets and other reports would be unchanged. Id. The only change to the CRA Cost Model is to remove lines in the control table on sheets ‘‘Comp Master’’ and ‘‘DK Addends’’ relating to Cost Segment 4. Id. 3 The POStPlan is a Postal Service initiative to match post office retail hours with workload, and represents an alternative, namely reducing retail window hours, in lieu of closing a post office. See Docket No. N2012–2, Advisory Opinion on Post Office Structure Plan, August 23, 2012. E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM 21AUP1 50816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C. Rationale The Postal Service’s rationale for Proposal Ten is that clerk costs in Cost Segment 4 have increased recently as clerks are appointed or assigned to former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. Moreover, because the CAG criterion using revenue amount to define Cost Segment 4 is sufficiently different from the transaction volumes used in POStPlan to designate post offices for reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not a valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Id. The Postal Service further says the cost classification rationale for Cost Segment 4 is similar to Cost Segment 3 cost components because CAG K and L clerks perform a corresponding mix of activities such as mail processing, window service, and administrative components. However, Cost Segment 4 has limited IOCS sample data and some products have no Cost Segment 4 tallies, which results in zero measured costs in a given year. The Postal Service concludes that incorporating Cost Segment 4 costs with other post office costs would be a more reliable analysis for cost attribution and in line with Cost Segment 3 methodology. It would result in a better assessment of clerk costs and avoid distortions from analyzing Cost Segment 4 separately. Id. Proposal Ten includes a table demonstrating the impact of merging Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment 3 costs by product. It shows a cost difference from a merger of $1,412,000 out of $12,945,185,000 or a 0.01 percent difference.4 Id. at 6. III. Initial Commission Action The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015–19 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission’s Web site at http:// www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Ten no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding. IV. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015–19 for consideration of the 4 The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Annual Compliance Report, USPS–FY14–32 and two additional files attached electronically. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), filed August 12, 2015. 2. Comments are due no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28, 2015. 3. 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. 4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–20633 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0564; FRL–9932–82– Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Kansas submitted on March 30, 2015. This SIP revision provides Kansas’ statedetermined allowance allocations for existing electric generating units (EGUs) in the State for the 2016 control periods and replaces the allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods established by EPA under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states to reduce the transport of pollution that significantly affects downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas’ SIP revision, incorporate the state-determined allocations for the 2016 control periods into the SIP, and amend the regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect approval and inclusion of the statedetermined allocations. EPA is SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 proposing to approve Kansas’ SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and the CSAPR requirements to replace EPA’s allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. This action is being proposed pursuant to the CAA and its implementing regulations. EPA’s allocations of CSAPR trading program allowances for Kansas for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined allowance allocations for those control periods through another SIP revision. The CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place until such time as the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 21, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2015–0564, by mail to Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7214 or by email at kemp.lachala@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that E:\FR\FM\21AUP1.SGM 21AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50815-50816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20633]


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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

39 CFR part 3050

[Docket No. RM2015-19; Order No. 2666]


Periodic Reporting

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing 
requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking 
proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to 
periodic reports (Proposal Ten). This notice informs the public of the 
filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

DATES: Comments are due: September 17, 2015. Reply Comments are due: 
September 28, 2015.

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 Ten
III. Initial Commission Action
IV. Ordering Paragraphs

I. Introduction

    On August 12, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 
39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal 
rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes in analytical 
principles relating to periodic reports.\1\ Proposal Ten is attached to 
the Petition and proposes an analytical method change related to the 
proposed merger of Cost Segments 3 and 4 for purposes of constructing 
the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) Report. Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the 
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in 
Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), August 12, 2015 (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposal Ten

A. Background

    As background, the Postal Service explains that the historical 
reason for separation of Cost Segment 4, which requires costs for small 
post offices to be isolated and transparent, occurred when decisions to 
close some small post offices were under consideration. Id. Proposal 
Ten at 1. However, where postmasters (whose costs are reflected in Cost 
Segment 1) in small post offices (identified by the Postal Service as 
``CAG K'' and ``CAG L'' offices) \2\ may be doing all of the tasks with 
no clerks, it is difficult to use Cost Segment 4 to adequately measure 
labor costs at these post offices. Proposal Ten at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``CAG'' refers to ``cost ascertainment group'' and is a 
method used by the Postal Service that classifies post offices based 
on volume of revenue generated. CAG K offices have 36-189 revenue 
units, and CAG L offices have less than 36. See Glossary of Postal 
Terms available at https://usps.com/publications/pub32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The In-Office Cost System (IOCS) maintains a separate panel for CAG 
K finance numbers that generally have one clerk. When the clerk is no 
longer there, no IOCS readings can be obtained and, as the number of 
IOCS reading of CAG K offices declines, the sampling variation 
increases until the sample is refreshed. Data suggest product costs in 
Cost Segment 4 are not statistically different from other small 
offices. Id. at 2.
    The Postal Service further explains that the POStPlan had 
potentially confusing impacts in Cost Segments 3 and 4. The Postal 
Service indicates that Postmaster Reliefs working at POStPlan \3\ post 
offices were subject to reductions in force as a result of a September 
5, 2014, ruling on an American Postal Workers Union arbitration that 
required four-hour and six-hour post offices to be assigned to clerks. 
According to the Postal Service, the effect of the ruling is that clerk 
costs in Cost Segments 3 and 4 may complicate the analysis of the 
effects of POStPlan. Furthermore, the Postal Service explains that 
recent cost increases in Cost Segment 4 are the result of reclassifying 
postmaster positions and shifting these positions from Cost Segment 1 
to clerks in Cost Segments 3 and 4. Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The POStPlan is a Postal Service initiative to match post 
office retail hours with workload, and represents an alternative, 
namely reducing retail window hours, in lieu of closing a post 
office. See Docket No. N2012-2, Advisory Opinion on Post Office 
Structure Plan, August 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

    Under the proposal, for Fiscal Year 2015, the IOCS would include 
data from CAG K and L post offices with data from CAG H and J post 
offices, and their trial balance amounts used as control totals for 
full-time and part-time clerks would be merged and treated as one 
stratum when refreshed. Id. at 3-4.
    Cost Segment 4 Trial Balance Accounts would be merged into the 
corresponding 5-digit accounts in Cost Segment 3, creating a revised 
``Cost Segment 3 & 4'' worksheet. The Cost Segment 3 account numbers 
and titles would be retained and the CRA Component would be expanded to 
``253 & 42.'' Other conforming Trial Balance worksheet changes would be 
made, but the merger will not affect the ``Outputs to CRA'' and 
``Product specific'' tabs in the Trial Balance. Id. at 4.
    In the Cost Segment 3 B workpapers, CAG K and L clerk costs would 
be incorporated into the Trial Balance control for Cost Segment 3. 
These changes would combine former Cost Segment 4 with the non-MODS 
office group in Cost Segment 3, and subject the mail processing, window 
service, and administrative activities at CAG K and L offices to the 
accepted cost methodology for each component. Id. Cost Segment 3 output 
spreadsheets and other reports would be unchanged. Id. The only change 
to the CRA Cost Model is to remove lines in the control table on sheets 
``Comp Master'' and ``DK Addends'' relating to Cost Segment 4. Id.

[[Page 50816]]

C. Rationale

    The Postal Service's rationale for Proposal Ten is that clerk costs 
in Cost Segment 4 have increased recently as clerks are appointed or 
assigned to former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. Moreover, because 
the CAG criterion using revenue amount to define Cost Segment 4 is 
sufficiently different from the transaction volumes used in POStPlan to 
designate post offices for reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not a 
valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Id. The Postal Service further 
says the cost classification rationale for Cost Segment 4 is similar to 
Cost Segment 3 cost components because CAG K and L clerks perform a 
corresponding mix of activities such as mail processing, window 
service, and administrative components. However, Cost Segment 4 has 
limited IOCS sample data and some products have no Cost Segment 4 
tallies, which results in zero measured costs in a given year.
    The Postal Service concludes that incorporating Cost Segment 4 
costs with other post office costs would be a more reliable analysis 
for cost attribution and in line with Cost Segment 3 methodology. It 
would result in a better assessment of clerk costs and avoid 
distortions from analyzing Cost Segment 4 separately. Id.
    Proposal Ten includes a table demonstrating the impact of merging 
Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment 3 costs by product. It shows a 
cost difference from a merger of $1,412,000 out of $12,945,185,000 or a 
0.01 percent difference.\4\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Annual 
Compliance Report, USPS-FY14-32 and two additional files attached 
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-19 for consideration 
of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning 
the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and 
Proposal Ten no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due 
no later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 
Commission designates Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the 
Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the 
general public in this proceeding.

IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:
    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-19 for 
consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United 
States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 
a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Ten), filed August 
12, 2015.
    2. Comments are due no later than September 17, 2015. Reply 
comments are due no later than September 28, 2015.
    3. 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.
    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the 
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20633 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P