Periodic Reporting, 26392-26396 [2018-12200]

Download as PDF 26392 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 3 [Docket No. FDA–2004–N–0191] Product Jurisdiction; Correction AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. rule to amend its regulations concerning the classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, and their assignment to Agency components for premarket review and regulation that appeared in the Federal Register of May 15, 2018. The document was published with an error in the discussion of the preliminary economic analysis impact. This document corrects that error. Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by July 16, 2018. DATES: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a proposed SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Burns, Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver Spring, MD 20933, 301–796–8930, melissa.burns@fda.hhs.gov. In the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 15, 2018, beginning on page 22428 for FR Doc. 2018–10321, table 1 on page 22433 is corrected to read: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TABLE 1—BENEFITS, COSTS, AND DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 1 2 Units Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate $17,000 15,000 .................... .................... .................... $12,000 10,000 .................... .................... .................... 28,000 28,000 .................... .................... 25,000 25,000 .................... .................... Category Costs: Annualized ................................. Monetized $/year ....................... Annualized ................................. Quantified ................................... Qualitative .................................. Benefits: Annualized ................................. Monetized $/year ....................... Annualized ................................. Quantified ................................... Qualitative .................................. Transfers: Federal ....................................... Annualized Monetized $millions/year ........... Year dollars Discount rate (%) Period covered (years) $27,000 23,000 .................... .................... .................... 2016 2016 .................... .................... .................... 7 3 7 3 .................... 10 10 .................... .................... .................... 89,000 89,000 .................... .................... 2016 2016 .................... .................... 7 3 7 3 10 10 .................... .................... Firms and FDA may realize savings from sponsors choosing to submit electronic RFDs .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 7 .................... 3 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... From/To ..................................... From: Other .......................................... Annualized. Monetized $millions/year ........... .................... .................... .................... .................... 7 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3 .................... From/To ..................................... From: Notes To: To: Effects: State, Local or Tribal Government: Small Business: Will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Wages: Growth: 1 We sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 2 All use a 10-year time horizon for this rule with payments occurring at the end of each period. dollar values are rounded to the nearest $1,000. Dated: June 1, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [FR Doc. 2018–12201 Filed 6–6–18; 8:45 am] [Docket No. RM2018–5; Order No. 4630] BILLING CODE 4164–01–P Periodic Reporting AGENCY: ACTION: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:26 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Postal Regulatory Commission. The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal Two). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps. SUMMARY: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules DATES: Comments are due: July 16, 2018. 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: ADDRESSES: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Proposal Two III. Notice and Comment IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On May 25, 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 Two. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS II. Proposal Two Background. Proposal Two relates to new sampling and weighting procedures for the city carrier portion of the InOffice Cost System (IOCS).2 The current IOCS design uses a multi-stage probability sample to randomly select city carriers, then an interval of work time from the city carrier’s tour, resulting in an observation (‘‘reading’’) that represents a ‘‘snapshot’’ of work activity in a sampled interval.3 Under the current IOCS design, data collection for city carriers is widely dispersed in both time and location, so the Postal Service conducts most city carrier readings by telephone. The Postal Service states that the availability of detailed clock ring data from the Time and Attendance Collection System (TACS) and Delivery Operations Information System (DOIS) data now allows for a change to the current IOCS 1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), May 25, 2018 (Petition). 2 Petition at 1. The IOCS ‘‘is a continuous, ongoing probability sample of work time to estimate costs of various activities performed by clerks, mail handlers, city carriers, and supervisors.’’ See Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference USPS–FY17–37, file ‘‘USPS–FY17–37.Preface.pdf,’’ at 2. 3 Petition, Proposal Two at 1. The Postal Service currently uses cost estimates from the IOCS to develop total accrued costs for both city carrier inoffice and street time. Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 sampling design for city carriers. Id. at 1–2. Proposal. The Postal Service proposes to change the current IOCS sample design for city carriers to a cluster sampling approach that would include using TACS workhours to weight the sampling data. Id. at 3–4. In the morning, on-site clustered city carrier readings would be conducted by an IOCS data collector, rather than with telephone respondents in sampled delivery zones.4 In zones with six or more routes (sampling mode 1), a maximum of six carriers would be randomly selected to represent the zone and morning readings would be taken on-site by the IOCS data collector once every 30 minutes.5 In zones with fewer than six city carriers working the selected zone (sampling mode 2), morning readings would be taken onsite by the IOCS data collector on all carriers once every 15 minutes.6 In the afternoon (sampling mode 3), all city carrier readings would be conducted by telephone and clustered into one-hour intervals.7 Under the cluster sampling design, the Postal Service proposes to use TACS workhours to weight sampling data by zone, and to provide cost controls for city carriers by time-of-day (morning and afternoon) and day-of-week group (weekday/Saturday group and Sunday/ Holiday group). Id. at 4–5. Additionally, the Postal Service states that it will use DOIS and TACS data for the sampled zone to weight the readings for each test relative to other tests within the same Cost Ascertainment Group (CAG) strata, and to post-stratify readings by route group and city carrier craft group. Id. at 4, 7. However, the Postal Service states that all afternoon readings are scaled to the total hours in the afternoon and not estimated by CAG separately because it asserts that ‘‘there are insufficient afternoon tallies’’ and ‘‘no significant difference [for in-office cost] is expected’’ because carriers would be on the street. Id. at 7. The Postal Service asserts that the proposal adopts the approach suggested by the Commission in Order No. 4399 for developing route group weighting factors when there were ‘‘empty cells’’ within the combination of route group and carrier group. Id. at 12. 4 Id. at 2, 4. ‘‘Zone is defined by both ZIP Code and finance number.’’ Id. at 4 n.5. 5 Id. at 5. All morning readings would begin when carriers start their workday and would continue until 11 a.m. Id. at 6. 6 The Postal Service plans to synchronize IOCSCluster readings with City Carrier Cost System (CCCS) tests when a data collector is already scheduled to be at a delivery unit. 7 All afternoon readings would be conducted between 11:00 and 19:00 hours. Id. at 6. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 26393 Proposal Two would also ‘‘[u]se TACS data to provide control totals for the portion of supervisor costs incurred by employees whose base craft is carrier, but who have clocked as supervisor.’’ Id. at 4. Additionally, unlike the current IOCS methodology, under the Proposal Two methodology, no IOCS readings would be conducted on Sundays and Holidays.8 However, for purposes of evaluating and presenting the estimated impact on FY 2017 costs, the Postal Service ‘‘shows the effects of attributing all Sunday/ Holiday costs’’ to Parcel Select. Id. at 9. Rationale and impact. The Postal Service states that the primary objective of Proposal Two is to replace telephone readings with on-site readings, particularly while carriers are on the premises and handling mail. Id. at 10. The Postal Service projects that the IOCS-Cluster system will obtain twice as much on-premises data as the current system, but ‘‘due to the improvement in sampling efficiency, will not require additional data collection resources.’’ Id. at 8. Further, the Postal Service asserts that ‘‘[t]he new design improves data quality by obtaining far more data from on-site rather than telephone readings, while simultaneously improving data collection efficiency.’’ Id. at 1. The Postal Service lists several benefits of the proposal including the ability to scan barcodes, providing feedback at the time of the reading for less-common products and assisting with ‘‘back-end processing of tallies.’’ Id. at 10. Additionally, the Postal Service states that on-site data collectors may do a better job than a telephone respondent of recognizing some of the mailpiece markings that are less common and more obscure. Id. Further, unlike city carrier telephone respondents, under Proposal Two, onsite IOCS data collectors would not have other duties that may affect and constrain participating in a reading under the current IOCS sampling system. Id. The Postal Service states that the proposal will result in a significant increase in the percentage of direct tallies where the carrier is handling the mailpiece, and decreases in tallies for support and administrative activities, training, and mixed mail. Id. at 12. The Postal Service also anticipates a 8 Id. at 5. Instead, the Postal Service states that it will develop control total costs for Sunday/Holiday from TACS hours and distribute costs using scanning data from Product Tracking and Reporting (PTR). Id. at 5, 9. The Postal Service explains that it intends to file a separate proposal outlining the use of the PTR data for Sunday/Holiday costs. Id. at 5. E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1 26394 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS significant increase in tallies in the parking area, potentially making it possible to distribute mixed mail tallies separately from in-facility. Id. at 13. The Postal Service states that the pilot data indicate some significant shifts in product costs, including a decrease in costs for First-Class letters, and increases in costs for a number of products including parcel-shaped products, carrier route bundled VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 products, Periodicals, and International Mail. Id. at 14–15. The Postal Service asserts that the shifts in product costs are most likely due to the use of on-site data collectors rather than telephone respondents. Id. at 15. The proposal would also impact costs associated with supervising city carriers.9 9 Id. at 14. The pilot data showed a 9.1-percent increase in supervisor city carrier costs, which PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 The Postal Service’s estimate of the effect on product unit costs is presented in Table 5 of Proposal Two, which is reproduced here. Id. at 16. BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P resulted in a slight increase in piggyback factors on city carrier costs. Id. E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1 26395 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules FY17 '!(, CHANGE C•FF CE OfFI 1 ~= -~~,[! ~.N [) .5-I.i.EE: ·:.~~ :l-F PIGGYBACKS IOCSCllsb!IV2 VOL II~.R OFRCE AND UNT COST. STREET ~·~LTH PIGGYBACKS Noeusb!r STREET COSTS FY17 ACR fi~? Ul!.1 COST WITH IIOCSCllsb!Nl! 14· CRA Class (15) I t - ·.::.:-.- .. _- s -10% ~ DIFF UNIT COST J J!t72:;1B .,., .... _.,., % CHANGE 0:21[1 0.316 i n mR $ 0.027 $ 0.005 1.2% i D om 4.9".{. $ 0.018 6.2% _;- 1% $ 1:1.2% 1.0'' '- )42 11l so :15% -12% $ 1]2_-- -J.6% 21 6.J% ~ a. 110 s ~ 11 '• n 1111 = -'ll· - '": s otm O.t111 t8..871 4tO.tll7 s ,. 31 - -,~ : .:.- t 7!i!i. 3% 17% ~17 43 :s- o.r: 72% i [Ui:" 39% -,_ 4.2 0.400 s 4t1.800 s o_g-· $ []_008 10.7% $ 0.104 44 1.2% $ D.05!l 83 6.7% $ 0.023 85 1lrnl 78.7DB :5i :l 86..421 s 62 54 21% .:;: 0.1:::::. 6..764 :s- 3. r-: 1.0% 55 -5% sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS . r:: BILLING CODE 7710–FW–C III. Notice and Comment The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018–5 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission’s website 15:57 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 $ 0.031 $(!12!51) 58 VerDate Sep<11>2014 O.C8~ 53J 39% $ 2.4;: at https://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Two no later than July 16, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 4.8% $ D.117 represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. IV. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018–5 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1 EP07JN18.004</GPH> GOD S Oll!'in 26396 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2018 / Proposed Rules United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), filed May 25, 2018. 2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 16, 2018. 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya 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. Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2018–12200 Filed 6–6–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 27 [WT Docket No. 18–120; FCC 18–59] Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 244001 This is a summary of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 18–120, FCC 18–59, adopted and released on May 10, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available on the Commission’s website at https://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Filing Procedures In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed service rules on the 2.5 GHz band and on refinements to the adopted rules in this document. DATES: Comments are due on or before July 9, 2018; reply comments are due on or before August 6, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 18–120, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission’s Website: https:// www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov, phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. SUMMARY: John J. Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202–418–0797 or by email to John.Schauble@fcc.gov. For information regarding the PRA information collection requirements contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 or Cathy.Williams@ fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https:// www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, WT Docket No. 18–120. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, Annapolis, MD 20701. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 888– 835–5322 (tty). Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules, this NPRM shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1

Agencies

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26392-26396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12200]


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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3050

[Docket No. RM2018-5; Order No. 4630]


Periodic Reporting

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recent filing requesting that the 
Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider 
changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal 
Two). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public 
comment, and takes other administrative steps.

[[Page 26393]]


DATES: Comments are due: July 16, 2018.

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:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Proposal Two
III. Notice and Comment
IV. Ordering Paragraphs

I. Introduction

    On May 25, 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 Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the 
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in 
Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), May 25, 2018 (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposal Two

    Background. Proposal Two relates to new sampling and weighting 
procedures for the city carrier portion of the In-Office Cost System 
(IOCS).\2\ The current IOCS design uses a multi-stage probability 
sample to randomly select city carriers, then an interval of work time 
from the city carrier's tour, resulting in an observation (``reading'') 
that represents a ``snapshot'' of work activity in a sampled 
interval.\3\ Under the current IOCS design, data collection for city 
carriers is widely dispersed in both time and location, so the Postal 
Service conducts most city carrier readings by telephone. The Postal 
Service states that the availability of detailed clock ring data from 
the Time and Attendance Collection System (TACS) and Delivery 
Operations Information System (DOIS) data now allows for a change to 
the current IOCS sampling design for city carriers. Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petition at 1. The IOCS ``is a continuous, ongoing 
probability sample of work time to estimate costs of various 
activities performed by clerks, mail handlers, city carriers, and 
supervisors.'' See Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference USPS-FY17-
37, file ``USPS-FY17-37.Preface.pdf,'' at 2.
    \3\ Petition, Proposal Two at 1. The Postal Service currently 
uses cost estimates from the IOCS to develop total accrued costs for 
both city carrier in-office and street time. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposal. The Postal Service proposes to change the current IOCS 
sample design for city carriers to a cluster sampling approach that 
would include using TACS workhours to weight the sampling data. Id. at 
3-4. In the morning, on-site clustered city carrier readings would be 
conducted by an IOCS data collector, rather than with telephone 
respondents in sampled delivery zones.\4\ In zones with six or more 
routes (sampling mode 1), a maximum of six carriers would be randomly 
selected to represent the zone and morning readings would be taken on-
site by the IOCS data collector once every 30 minutes.\5\ In zones with 
fewer than six city carriers working the selected zone (sampling mode 
2), morning readings would be taken on-site by the IOCS data collector 
on all carriers once every 15 minutes.\6\ In the afternoon (sampling 
mode 3), all city carrier readings would be conducted by telephone and 
clustered into one-hour intervals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 2, 4. ``Zone is defined by both ZIP Code and finance 
number.'' Id. at 4 n.5.
    \5\ Id. at 5. All morning readings would begin when carriers 
start their workday and would continue until 11 a.m. Id. at 6.
    \6\ The Postal Service plans to synchronize IOCS-Cluster 
readings with City Carrier Cost System (CCCS) tests when a data 
collector is already scheduled to be at a delivery unit.
    \7\ All afternoon readings would be conducted between 11:00 and 
19:00 hours. Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the cluster sampling design, the Postal Service proposes to 
use TACS workhours to weight sampling data by zone, and to provide cost 
controls for city carriers by time-of-day (morning and afternoon) and 
day-of-week group (weekday/Saturday group and Sunday/Holiday group). 
Id. at 4-5. Additionally, the Postal Service states that it will use 
DOIS and TACS data for the sampled zone to weight the readings for each 
test relative to other tests within the same Cost Ascertainment Group 
(CAG) strata, and to post-stratify readings by route group and city 
carrier craft group. Id. at 4, 7. However, the Postal Service states 
that all afternoon readings are scaled to the total hours in the 
afternoon and not estimated by CAG separately because it asserts that 
``there are insufficient afternoon tallies'' and ``no significant 
difference [for in-office cost] is expected'' because carriers would be 
on the street. Id. at 7.
    The Postal Service asserts that the proposal adopts the approach 
suggested by the Commission in Order No. 4399 for developing route 
group weighting factors when there were ``empty cells'' within the 
combination of route group and carrier group. Id. at 12.
    Proposal Two would also ``[u]se TACS data to provide control totals 
for the portion of supervisor costs incurred by employees whose base 
craft is carrier, but who have clocked as supervisor.'' Id. at 4. 
Additionally, unlike the current IOCS methodology, under the Proposal 
Two methodology, no IOCS readings would be conducted on Sundays and 
Holidays.\8\ However, for purposes of evaluating and presenting the 
estimated impact on FY 2017 costs, the Postal Service ``shows the 
effects of attributing all Sunday/Holiday costs'' to Parcel Select. Id. 
at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 5. Instead, the Postal Service states that it will 
develop control total costs for Sunday/Holiday from TACS hours and 
distribute costs using scanning data from Product Tracking and 
Reporting (PTR). Id. at 5, 9. The Postal Service explains that it 
intends to file a separate proposal outlining the use of the PTR 
data for Sunday/Holiday costs. Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rationale and impact. The Postal Service states that the primary 
objective of Proposal Two is to replace telephone readings with on-site 
readings, particularly while carriers are on the premises and handling 
mail. Id. at 10.
    The Postal Service projects that the IOCS-Cluster system will 
obtain twice as much on-premises data as the current system, but ``due 
to the improvement in sampling efficiency, will not require additional 
data collection resources.'' Id. at 8. Further, the Postal Service 
asserts that ``[t]he new design improves data quality by obtaining far 
more data from on-site rather than telephone readings, while 
simultaneously improving data collection efficiency.'' Id. at 1.
    The Postal Service lists several benefits of the proposal including 
the ability to scan barcodes, providing feedback at the time of the 
reading for less-common products and assisting with ``back-end 
processing of tallies.'' Id. at 10. Additionally, the Postal Service 
states that on-site data collectors may do a better job than a 
telephone respondent of recognizing some of the mailpiece markings that 
are less common and more obscure. Id. Further, unlike city carrier 
telephone respondents, under Proposal Two, on-site IOCS data collectors 
would not have other duties that may affect and constrain participating 
in a reading under the current IOCS sampling system. Id.
    The Postal Service states that the proposal will result in a 
significant increase in the percentage of direct tallies where the 
carrier is handling the mailpiece, and decreases in tallies for support 
and administrative activities, training, and mixed mail. Id. at 12. The 
Postal Service also anticipates a

[[Page 26394]]

significant increase in tallies in the parking area, potentially making 
it possible to distribute mixed mail tallies separately from in-
facility. Id. at 13.
    The Postal Service states that the pilot data indicate some 
significant shifts in product costs, including a decrease in costs for 
First-Class letters, and increases in costs for a number of products 
including parcel-shaped products, carrier route bundled products, 
Periodicals, and International Mail. Id. at 14-15. The Postal Service 
asserts that the shifts in product costs are most likely due to the use 
of on-site data collectors rather than telephone respondents. Id. at 
15. The proposal would also impact costs associated with supervising 
city carriers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 14. The pilot data showed a 9.1-percent increase in 
supervisor city carrier costs, which resulted in a slight increase 
in piggyback factors on city carrier costs. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Postal Service's estimate of the effect on product unit costs 
is presented in Table 5 of Proposal Two, which is reproduced here. Id. 
at 16.
 BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

[[Page 26395]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07JN18.004

 BILLING CODE 7710-FW-C

III. Notice and Comment

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-5 for consideration of 
matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be 
accessed via the Commission's website at https://www.prc.gov. Interested 
persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Two no later 
than July 16, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. 
Bzhilyanskaya is designated 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. RM2018-5 for consideration 
of the matters raised by the Petition of the

[[Page 26396]]

United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to 
Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), 
filed May 25, 2018.
    2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no 
later than July 16, 2018.
    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. 
Bzhilyanskaya 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.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12200 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.