Periodic Reporting, 32069-32071 [2018-14768]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
calendar year as attributable to the
succeeding calendar year.’’ 12 In
practice, the Register has not previously
established a procedure to exercise this
discretion. The Copyright Office now
proposes to close out funds or subfunds
at any time four years after the close of
the calendar year for a given fund, if
that fund is subject to a final
distribution order. In accordance with
section 1005, the Register will treat any
funds remaining in such account or
subsequent deposits as attributable to
the closest succeeding calendar year.
The Office proposes to codify this
practice in its proposed rule, and seeks
comment on this proposal.
noticed in December 2017, that
proposes to address a wider and more
complex set of issues related to
statement of account reporting practices,
particularly the section 111 license for
cable systems.17 The Office has
extended the public comment period for
that December 2017 NPRM to October 4,
2018.18 Meanwhile, while the change
removing the requirement that royalty
fees must be paid in ‘‘a single’’ payment
is intended to be technical, the Office
solicits public comment on this discrete
issue as part of this current rulemaking.
B. Payment of Royalty Fees by
Electronic Funds Transfer
The Licensing Division administers
various statutory licensing schemes,
including those requiring the
submission of statements of account by
cable systems, satellite carriers, and
manufacturers or importers of digital
audio recording devices and media.13
Pursuant to its statutory authority, the
Copyright Office has set out the
requirements for payment of royalty fees
under each of these statutory licenses by
regulation.14 One such requirement for
all of these statutory licenses is that
‘‘[a]ll royalty fees shall be paid by a
single electronic funds transfer.’’ 15 This
language became effective in 2006, as
part of the final rule requiring remitters
to pay royalty payments by electronic
funds transfer (‘‘EFT’’).16
In practice, however, the Office has
found that the requirement that
remitters make royalty payments for
multiple statements of account in a
single, lump sum payment is
unnecessarily restrictive and has
hampered ongoing modernization
efforts. Accordingly, the Office proposes
to remove the requirement that filers
submit multiple SOAs in a single EFT
payment for the relevant statutory
licenses, specifically, by amending 37
CFR 201.11(f)(1), 201.17(k)(1), and
201.28(h)(1) to remove the requirement
that royalty fees must be paid in ‘‘a
single’’ payment. The current regulatory
requirement that funds be submitted
through EFT will remain in place.
Because the Office seeks to implement
this reform expeditiously for reasons of
administrative efficiency, it is
separating this minor proposed change
from a larger ongoing rulemaking,
Proposed Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Copyright Office proposes
amending 37 CFR part 201 as follows:
12 17
U.S.C. 1005.
13 See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1), 119(b)(1), 122(a)(5),
1003(c).
14 37 CFR 201.11(f)(1), 201.17(k)(1), 201.28(h)(1).
15 Id.
16 Electronic Payment of Royalties, 71 FR 45739
(Aug. 10, 2006).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201
Copyright, General provisions.
PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 201
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
§ 201.11
[Amended]
2. Amend § 201.11 by removing ‘‘a
single’’ from paragraph (f)(1).
■
§ 201.17
[Amended]
3. Amend § 201.17 by removing ‘‘a
single’’ from paragraph (k)(1)
introductory text.
■
§ 201.28
[Amended]
4. Amend § 201.28 by removing ‘‘a
single’’ from paragraph (h)(1)
introductory text.
■ 5. Add § 201.31 to read as follows:
■
§ 201.31 Procedures for closing out
royalty payments accounts in accordance
with the Audio Home Recording Act.
(a) General. This section prescribes
rules pertaining to the close out of
royalty payments accounts in
accordance with 17 U.S.C. 1005.
(b) In the Register’s discretion, four
years after the close of any calendar
year, the Register of Copyrights may
close out the royalty payments account
for that calendar year, including any
sub-accounts, that are subject to a final
distribution order under which royalty
payments have been disbursed.
Following closure of an account, the
Register will treat any funds remaining
in that account, or subsequent deposits
that would otherwise be attributable to
that calendar year, as attributable to the
succeeding calendar year.
17 Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License
Reporting Practices, 82 FR 56926, 56935–36 (Dec.
1, 2017).
18 Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License
Reporting Practices, 83 FR 26229 (Jun. 6, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32069
Dated: July 2, 2018.
Regan A. Smith,
General Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2018–14543 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3050
[Docket No. RM2018–10; Order No. 4696]
Periodic Reporting
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is
acknowledging a recent filing requesting
the Commission initiate an informal
rulemaking proceeding to consider
changes to an analytical method for use
in periodic reporting (Proposal Seven).
This document informs the public of the
filing, invites public comment, and
takes other administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: September 5,
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.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Proposal Seven
III. Notice and Comment
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
On June 29, 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 Seven.
II. Proposal Seven
Background. The Proposal Seven
objective is to ‘‘reorganize Cost Segment
3 and certain mail processing cost pools
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven),
June 29, 2018 (Petition).
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
32070
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
to reflect operational changes and to
better classify clerk and mail handler
work activities.’’ Petition at 1.
Since its inception, the current Cost
Segment 3 methodology has divided
clerk and mail handler costs into costs
incurred at ‘‘MODS’’ offices, NDCs and
‘‘non-MODS’’ facilities. Petition,
Proposal Seven at 1. Within each office
group, the Cost Segment 3 model
divides mail processing activities into
activity-based cost pools. Id. The cost
pools allow for distinct causal
assignments of volume-variable costs to
products for activities with distinct
product mixes and/or distinct roles in
the mail processing system. Id. The
Postal Service states ‘‘[i]mprovements to
the non-MODS cost methodology
introduced activity-based mail
processing cost pools which currently
offer finer activity detail than the
corresponding MODS cost pools.’’ Id. at
2. The Postal Service notes:
MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the
current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well
as the NDC SSM cost pool.
6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC
and NDC NMO cost pools.
7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS
OTH cost pools such that the former includes
all applicable parcel (TPH) operations,
limiting the latter to bundle (NATPH)
operations.
8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail
distribution operations from the OTHR cost
pool to the MANP cost pool. (footnote
omitted)
9. Employ non-MODS methodology to
assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools,
including costs pools currently in the MODS
office group. (footnote omitted)
10. Realign facility space categories and
distribution keys in conjunction with labor
cost changes.
The primary operational distinction is
between ‘‘Function 1’’ mail processing (i.e.
mail processing at plants) and ‘‘Function 4’’
activities (processing, window service, and
other activities at customer service facilities
including post offices, stations, and
branches) and that [a] significant aim of this
proposal is to align the Cost Segment 3 office
groups with this operational distinction, and
to provide a common set of cost pools for
reporting Function 4 costs based on the nonMODS cost pools.
1. Redefine the ‘‘MODS’’ office group to
include only MODS-reporting plants, with
other offices assigned to non-MODS group.
Redefinition will ‘‘make it easier to analyze
mail processing costs at post offices, stations,
and branches under a common set of cost
pools. The offices that are proposed to shift
to the non-MODS group, [are] nearly all of
the mail processing costs which are in
‘‘Function 4’’ (LDC41–49) cost pools.’’ Id. at
5. This will provide a more consistent
treatment of Function 4 costs. ‘‘Currently,
costs for otherwise similar activities—
particularly manual mail processing at
customer service facilities—may be treated
differently depending on whether they occur
at a MODS or non-MODS finance number.’’
Id. at 6.
2. Consolidate LDC15LCREM operations in
cost pool LD15PLNT into the D/BCS cost
pool. The Low-Cost Reject Encoding Machine
(LCREM) cost pool is assigned to a small cost
pool and will be included with other LCREM
operations already included in LDC 11,
currently part of the much larger D/BCS cost
pool. Id. at 6.
3. Consolidate FSM/1000 into AFSM 100
cost pool. This is to provide for the phaseout of remaining operations for UFSM 1000
equipment. Continuing decline is expected
and the activity in FSM/1000 cost pools no
longer has a material effect on mail
processing costs. Id. at 6–7.
4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool
(MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100
cost pool. This is to harmonize treatment of
1FLATPRP (MODS operation 035) with other
flat preparation operations in the Cost
Segment 3.1 model. The declining scale of
remaining FSM/10000 operations no longer
justifies separate treatment of 1FLATPRP. Id.
at 7.
5. Collect operations for the low-Cost
Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack sorting
Machine in new LCUS–SSM cost pools for
MODS offices and NDCs, supplanting the
current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well
as the NDC SSM cost pool. Consolidation
should limit the potential impact of clocking
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Id.
The Postal Service states ‘‘[m]ail
processing cost pools also require
periodic revision to maintain
consistency with Postal Service
operations. This proposal includes
several mail processing cost pool
changes intended to improve the
treatment of certain new equipment, as
well as to prepare for the eventual
withdrawal of other equipment from
service.’’ Id. at 2–3.
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes
the following actions to reorganize
MODS and non-MODS office groups for
the Cost Segment 3 model, and to revise
certain mail processing cost pools for
MODS plant and NDCs (formerly
BMCs):
1. Redefine the ‘‘MODS’’ office group to
include only MODS-reporting plants, with
other offices assigned to the non-MODS
group. (footnote omitted)
2. Consolidate LDC 15 LCREM operations
(currently in cost pool LD15PLNT) into the
D/BCS cost pool.
3. Consolidate the FSM/1000 cost pool into
the AFSM100 cost pool.
4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool
(MODS operation 035) into the AFSM100
cost pool.
5. Collect operations for the Low-Cost
Universal Sorter (LCUS) and Sack Sorting
Machine in new LCUS–SSM cost pools for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
Id. at 3–4.
Rationale and impact: The Postal
Service lists separately the rationale for
each revision in Proposal Seven as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
errors within LCUS operations and also
facilitate computation of operation-specific
piggyback costs. Id. at 8.
6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC
and NDC NMO cost pools. ‘‘[T]here are no
other valid plant operations remaining in the
MECPARC cost pool after the universal sorter
operations have been gathered into the new
LCUS–SSM cost pool.’’ New automated
parcel equipment would be assigned to the
APBSPRIO cost pool. Therefore, ‘‘there will
be no valid workhours for the NDC NMO cost
pool going forward.’’ Id. at 9.
7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS
OTH cost pools. Moving minor parcel
operations with a small number of workhours
from APBS OTH to APBSPRIO will be
consistent with the treatment of other parcel
operations and reinforce the conceptual
definition of APBS as the automated bundle
sorting cost pool. Id.
8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail
distribution operations from the OTHR cost
pool to the MANP cost pool. ‘‘[T]reating these
operations as part of the MANP distribution
cost pool will reduce the possibility that
mixed-mail costs will be distributed to nonparcels and/or parcel products that receive
automated processing.’’ Id. at 10.
9. Employ non-MODS methodology to
assign all Function 4 costs to cost pools,
including cost pools currently in the MODS
office group. This will simplify report of
Function 4 costs that are currently spread
across cost pools in the two office groups
defined similarly and reduce cases where
costs from similar activities may be treated
differently based on their office group. Id. at
10. ‘‘[T]he larger effective sample sizes from
combining MODS Function 4 tallies with
non-MODS should result in little or no
adverse effect on the coefficients of variation
(CVs) for the sample-based cost estimates.’’
Id. at 11.
10. Realign facility space categories and
distribution keys in conjunction with labor
cost changes. ‘‘[U]nder the proposed
methodology, labor cost pool consolidations
would require corresponding consolidations
of associated facility space distribution keys
and associated space costs (and square
footage).’’ Id.
The Postal Service’s estimate of the effect
on product costs is presented in Table 1 in
the Excel file attached to the Petition. The
Postal Service states ‘‘[t]he Cost Segment 3
impact includes the effects of the proposal on
the Mail Processing, Window Service, and
Administrative components[,]’’ as well as
‘‘revisions to distribution keys for
piggybacked costs[,]’’ which ‘‘may variously
reinforce or offset the direct impact on Cost
Segment 3 labor costs.’’ The impact is small
in most cases. Id. at 12.
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2018–10 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 Seven no later
than September 5, 2018. Pursuant to 39
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster is
designated as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
[Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001]
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2018–10 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 Seven), filed June
29, 2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
September 5, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster
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. 2018–14768 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:54 Jul 10, 2018
Jkt 244001
40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503,
1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508
RIN 0331–AA03
Update to the Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; extension of comment
period.
AGENCY:
On June 20, 2018, the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled
‘‘Update to the Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act.’’ The CEQ is extending the
comment period on the ANPRM, which
was scheduled to close on July 20, 2018,
for 31 days until August 20, 2018. The
CEQ is making this change in response
to public requests for an extension of
the comment period.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
on or before August 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification
number CEQ–2018–0001 through the
Federal eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from https://
www.regulations.gov. CEQ may publish
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
32071
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (e.g., audio, video) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make.
Comments may also be submitted by
mail. Send your comments to: Council
on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson
Place NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attn:
Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward A. Boling, Associate Director for
the National Environmental Policy Act,
Council on Environmental Quality, 730
Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC
20503. Telephone: (202) 395–5750.
On June
20, 2018, CEQ published an ANPRM
titled ‘‘Update to the Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act’’ in the Federal Register (83 FR
28591). The original deadline to submit
comments was July 20, 2018. This
action extends the comment period for
31 days to ensure the public has
sufficient time to review and comment
on the ANPRM. Written comments
should be submitted on or before
August 20, 2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Mary B. Neumayr,
Chief of Staff, Council on Environmental
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2018–14821 Filed 7–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3225–F8–P
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32069-32071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14768]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3050
[Docket No. RM2018-10; Order No. 4696]
Periodic Reporting
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the
Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider
changes to an analytical method for use in periodic reporting (Proposal
Seven). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public
comment, and takes other administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: September 5, 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 Seven
III. Notice and Comment
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
On June 29, 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 Seven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petition of the United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in
Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), June 29, 2018 (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposal Seven
Background. The Proposal Seven objective is to ``reorganize Cost
Segment 3 and certain mail processing cost pools
[[Page 32070]]
to reflect operational changes and to better classify clerk and mail
handler work activities.'' Petition at 1.
Since its inception, the current Cost Segment 3 methodology has
divided clerk and mail handler costs into costs incurred at ``MODS''
offices, NDCs and ``non-MODS'' facilities. Petition, Proposal Seven at
1. Within each office group, the Cost Segment 3 model divides mail
processing activities into activity-based cost pools. Id. The cost
pools allow for distinct causal assignments of volume-variable costs to
products for activities with distinct product mixes and/or distinct
roles in the mail processing system. Id. The Postal Service states
``[i]mprovements to the non-MODS cost methodology introduced activity-
based mail processing cost pools which currently offer finer activity
detail than the corresponding MODS cost pools.'' Id. at 2. The Postal
Service notes:
The primary operational distinction is between ``Function 1''
mail processing (i.e. mail processing at plants) and ``Function 4''
activities (processing, window service, and other activities at
customer service facilities including post offices, stations, and
branches) and that [a] significant aim of this proposal is to align
the Cost Segment 3 office groups with this operational distinction,
and to provide a common set of cost pools for reporting Function 4
costs based on the non-MODS cost pools.
Id.
The Postal Service states ``[m]ail processing cost pools also
require periodic revision to maintain consistency with Postal Service
operations. This proposal includes several mail processing cost pool
changes intended to improve the treatment of certain new equipment, as
well as to prepare for the eventual withdrawal of other equipment from
service.'' Id. at 2-3.
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes the following actions to
reorganize MODS and non-MODS office groups for the Cost Segment 3
model, and to revise certain mail processing cost pools for MODS plant
and NDCs (formerly BMCs):
1. Redefine the ``MODS'' office group to include only MODS-
reporting plants, with other offices assigned to the non-MODS group.
(footnote omitted)
2. Consolidate LDC 15 LCREM operations (currently in cost pool
LD15PLNT) into the D/BCS cost pool.
3. Consolidate the FSM/1000 cost pool into the AFSM100 cost
pool.
4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool (MODS operation 035) into
the AFSM100 cost pool.
5. Collect operations for the Low-Cost Universal Sorter (LCUS)
and Sack Sorting Machine in new LCUS-SSM cost pools for MODS offices
and NDCs, supplanting the current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well as
the NDC SSM cost pool.
6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC and NDC NMO cost pools.
7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS OTH cost pools such that the
former includes all applicable parcel (TPH) operations, limiting the
latter to bundle (NATPH) operations.
8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail distribution operations
from the OTHR cost pool to the MANP cost pool. (footnote omitted)
9. Employ non-MODS methodology to assign all Function 4 costs to
cost pools, including costs pools currently in the MODS office
group. (footnote omitted)
10. Realign facility space categories and distribution keys in
conjunction with labor cost changes.
Id. at 3-4.
Rationale and impact: The Postal Service lists separately the
rationale for each revision in Proposal Seven as follows:
1. Redefine the ``MODS'' office group to include only MODS-
reporting plants, with other offices assigned to non-MODS group.
Redefinition will ``make it easier to analyze mail processing costs
at post offices, stations, and branches under a common set of cost
pools. The offices that are proposed to shift to the non-MODS group,
[are] nearly all of the mail processing costs which are in
``Function 4'' (LDC41-49) cost pools.'' Id. at 5. This will provide
a more consistent treatment of Function 4 costs. ``Currently, costs
for otherwise similar activities--particularly manual mail
processing at customer service facilities--may be treated
differently depending on whether they occur at a MODS or non-MODS
finance number.'' Id. at 6.
2. Consolidate LDC15LCREM operations in cost pool LD15PLNT into
the D/BCS cost pool. The Low-Cost Reject Encoding Machine (LCREM)
cost pool is assigned to a small cost pool and will be included with
other LCREM operations already included in LDC 11, currently part of
the much larger D/BCS cost pool. Id. at 6.
3. Consolidate FSM/1000 into AFSM 100 cost pool. This is to
provide for the phase-out of remaining operations for UFSM 1000
equipment. Continuing decline is expected and the activity in FSM/
1000 cost pools no longer has a material effect on mail processing
costs. Id. at 6-7.
4. Consolidate the 1FLATPRP cost pool (MODS operation 035) into
the AFSM100 cost pool. This is to harmonize treatment of 1FLATPRP
(MODS operation 035) with other flat preparation operations in the
Cost Segment 3.1 model. The declining scale of remaining FSM/10000
operations no longer justifies separate treatment of 1FLATPRP. Id.
at 7.
5. Collect operations for the low-Cost Universal Sorter (LCUS)
and Sack sorting Machine in new LCUS-SSM cost pools for MODS offices
and NDCs, supplanting the current MODS 1SACKS_M cost pool as well as
the NDC SSM cost pool. Consolidation should limit the potential
impact of clocking errors within LCUS operations and also facilitate
computation of operation-specific piggyback costs. Id. at 8.
6. Eliminate the current plant MECPARC and NDC NMO cost pools.
``[T]here are no other valid plant operations remaining in the
MECPARC cost pool after the universal sorter operations have been
gathered into the new LCUS-SSM cost pool.'' New automated parcel
equipment would be assigned to the APBSPRIO cost pool. Therefore,
``there will be no valid workhours for the NDC NMO cost pool going
forward.'' Id. at 9.
7. Reorganize the APBSPRIO and APBS OTH cost pools. Moving minor
parcel operations with a small number of workhours from APBS OTH to
APBSPRIO will be consistent with the treatment of other parcel
operations and reinforce the conceptual definition of APBS as the
automated bundle sorting cost pool. Id.
8. Move NDC LDC 14 manual Priority Mail distribution operations
from the OTHR cost pool to the MANP cost pool. ``[T]reating these
operations as part of the MANP distribution cost pool will reduce
the possibility that mixed-mail costs will be distributed to non-
parcels and/or parcel products that receive automated processing.''
Id. at 10.
9. Employ non-MODS methodology to assign all Function 4 costs to
cost pools, including cost pools currently in the MODS office group.
This will simplify report of Function 4 costs that are currently
spread across cost pools in the two office groups defined similarly
and reduce cases where costs from similar activities may be treated
differently based on their office group. Id. at 10. ``[T]he larger
effective sample sizes from combining MODS Function 4 tallies with
non-MODS should result in little or no adverse effect on the
coefficients of variation (CVs) for the sample-based cost
estimates.'' Id. at 11.
10. Realign facility space categories and distribution keys in
conjunction with labor cost changes. ``[U]nder the proposed
methodology, labor cost pool consolidations would require
corresponding consolidations of associated facility space
distribution keys and associated space costs (and square footage).''
Id.
The Postal Service's estimate of the effect on product costs is
presented in Table 1 in the Excel file attached to the Petition. The
Postal Service states ``[t]he Cost Segment 3 impact includes the
effects of the proposal on the Mail Processing, Window Service, and
Administrative components[,]'' as well as ``revisions to
distribution keys for piggybacked costs[,]'' which ``may variously
reinforce or offset the direct impact on Cost Segment 3 labor
costs.'' The impact is small in most cases. Id. at 12.
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2018-10 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
Seven no later than September 5, 2018. Pursuant to 39
[[Page 32071]]
U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster 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. RM2018-10 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 Seven), filed June
29, 2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no
later than September 5, 2018.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lawrence
Fenster 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. 2018-14768 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
