Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10507 

AAL AK E5 Port Alsworth, AK [NEW] 

Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport, AK 

(Lat. 60°11′55 ′′N, long. 154°19′23 ′′W) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 7.3 mile radius 

of Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport beginning at 

the point the 230° bearing from the airport 

intersects the 7.3-mile radius clockwise along 

the 7.3-mile radius to the point the 271° 

bearing intersects the 7.3-mile radius, thence 

east to the point the 308° bearing from the 

airport intersects an arc within a 2.5 mile 

radius of the airport, thence clockwise along 

the 2.5-mile arc to the point the 79° bearing 

intersects the 2.5-mile arc thence southwest 

to the point of beginning. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 

20, 2021. 

Byron Chew, 

Acting Group Manager, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01617 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Addressing Standards 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; revision; 

additional comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is revising 

its pending proposal to amend Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) 

in various sections of Addressing, to 

update addressing standards. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 24, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the manager, Product 

Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, 

Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending 

comments by email, include the name 

and address of the commenter and send 

to PCFederalRegister@usps.gov, with a 

subject line of ‘‘Addressing Standards’’. 

Faxed comments are not accepted. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

You may inspect and photocopy all 

written comments, by appointment 

only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor 

North, Washington, DC 20260. These 

records are available for review on 

Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–4 p.m., 

by calling 202–268–2906. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Wilson at (901) 681–4600, Kai 

Fisher at (901) 681–4634, or Garry 

Rodriguez at (202) 268–7281. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 22, 2020, the Postal Service 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (85 FR 59484–59486) to 

update addressing standards. In 

response to that proposed rule, the 

mailing industry provided many 

valuable comments, which has 

prompted the Postal Service to issue a 

revised proposed rule with an 

additional comment period. The revised 

proposed rule will clarify our proposal 

to respond to mailer comments by 

clearly outlining the ways in which the 

proposal has changed. 

Comments 

Thirty-five formal responses were 

received. Several responses expressed 

concern that the change would create 

cost increases for lower volume mailers 

that currently process their lists 

quarterly and would be required to 

process more frequently, increasing the 

cost paid to mail service providers for 

address matching services. Several 

responses suggested the 60-day 

requirement should be increased to 95 

days, which coincides with Move 

Update Standards. Other comments 

questioned the 60-day requirement from 

address matching to the mailing date 

with a product release that is still valid 

for use beyond that time frame. The 

remaining comments requested an 

extension of the comment period. 

Background 

Currently, DMM section 602.6.0, ZIP 

Code Accuracy Standards, provides that 

a ZIP CodeTM may be used on a mail 

piece within 12 months after verified 

using a Postal Service approved method. 

Once a ZIP Code is used on a mailpiece, 

the address associated with that ZIP 

Code is considered to meet Postal 

Service addressing standards for an 

additional 12 months from the date first 

used in the mail. 

DMM sections 602.7.0, Carrier Route 

Accuracy Standard, and 9.0, Coding 

Accuracy Support System (CASS), 

provide that Address Matching and 

Coding Update standards require coding 

to be performed within 90 days before 

the mailing date for carrier route 

mailings and 180 days for all non-carrier 

route mailings using the most current 

USPS database. The current product 

release schedule allows for use of a 

database that is valid for 105 days and 

may be used for an additional 6 months 

beyond that timeframe. As such, an 

address added or modified in the Postal 

Service database may not be updated on 

a mailer’s mailing list for nearly 1 year 

after the change was made. 

In 2012, the Postal Service 

implemented address management 

product fulfillment via an electronic 

product fulfillment method designed to 

provide subscription products to 

customers more efficiently. The 

database product updates are posted 

each month to a secure site where 

customers can log in to simply 

download the product files. A recent 

survey of licensed Address Management 

data products indicates that CASS and 

Multiline Accuracy Support System 

(MASS) Certified software and service 

providers are retrieving and using the 

monthly updates during the address 

matching and coding processes. 

Proposal 

The Postal Service proposed 

implementing a database product cycle 

that aligns with the release of other 

mailing products. This will provide 

consistency across all mailing products 

and the method by which the data files 

are available and distributed. 

The suggestion to increase the 60-day 

requirement to coincide with the 95 

days required for Move Update 

Standards is not within the scope of this 

proposal. 

The updated proposed release 

schedule allows for 120 days of use and 

an overlap in dates for product use. 

Mailers that currently process their lists 

quarterly would still be compliant as 

long as they do not mail beyond the 

‘‘last permissible mailing date’’ for the 

‘‘product date’’ as shown in the USPS 

Product Cycle in Exhibit 9.3.1. Mailers 

will be expected to update their systems 

with the latest data files as soon as 

practicable and should not wait until 

the ‘‘last permissible use’’ date. 

The Postal Service is proposing to 

implement this change effective July 1, 

2021. However, mailers may opt to use 

the new monthly update cycles for both 

carrier route and non-carrier route 

mailings immediately. 

We believe this proposed revision 

will provide customers with a more 

efficient process and will reduce the 

risk of using address information that is 

not current. 

Although exempt from the notice and 

comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553(b), (c)) regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the 

Postal Service invites public comment 

on the following proposed revisions to 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), incorporated by reference in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 

111.1. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
10508 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM) as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

600 Basic Standards for All Mailing 

Services 

* * * * * 

602 Addressing 

* * * * * 

6.0 ZIP Code Accuracy Standards 

6.1 Basic Standards 

Except for mail bearing a simplified 

address, addresses used on pieces in a 

mailing at all commercial First-Class 

Mail, nonbarcoded presorted 

Periodicals, USPS Marketing Mail, 

Parcel Select Lightweight, and Bound 

Printed Matter presorted and carrier 

route prices are subject to the ZIP Code 

accuracy standard and must meet these 

requirements: 

[Revise the text of items a and b to 

read as follows:] 

a. Each address and associated 5-digit 

ZIP Code on the mailpieces in a mailing 

must be verified and corrected within 6 

months before the mailing date with one 

of the USPS-approved methods in 6.2. 

b. If an address used on a mailpiece 

in a mailing at one class of mail and 

price is verified and corrected with an 

approved method, the same address 

may be used during the following 6 

months to meet the ZIP Code accuracy 

standard required for mailing at any 

other class of mail and price. 

6.2 USPS—Approved Methods 

The following methods meet the ZIP 

Code accuracy standard: 

* * * * * 

b. For manually maintained lists or 

small computerized lists, options 

include the following: 

[Delete item b1 and renumber items 

b2 through b5 as items b1 through b4.] 

* * * * * 

7.0 Carrier Route Accuracy Standard 

7.1 Basic Standards 

* * * Addresses used on pieces 

claiming any Periodicals carrier route 

prices, any USPS Marketing Mail 

Enhanced Carrier Route prices 

(including DALs or DMLs used with 

Product Samples), or any Bound Printed 

Matter carrier route prices are subject to 

the carrier route accuracy standard and 

must meet the following requirements: 

[Revise the text of item a to read as 

follows:] 

a. Each address and associated carrier 

route code used on the mailpieces (or 

DALs or DMLs) in a mailing must be 

updated with one of the USPS-approved 

methods in 6.2 using a product release 

that is within the USPS Product Cycle 

as provided in Exhibit 9.3.1. 

* * * * * 

[Delete item c.] 

* * * * * 

9.0 Coding Accuracy Support System 

(CASS) 

* * * * * 

9.3 Date of Address Matching and 

Coding 

9.3.1 Update Standards 

[Revise the text of 9.3.1 to read as 

follows:] 

Unless Z4CHANGE is used, all 

automation and carrier route mailings 

bearing addresses coded by any AIS 

product must be coded with current 

CASS-certified software and the current 

USPS database. Coding must be done 

using a product release that is within 

the USPS Product Cycle as provided in 

Exhibit 9.3.1. All AIS products may be 

used immediately on release. New 

product releases must be included in 

address matching systems no later than 

after the first of the month following the 

product date. The overlap in dates for 

product use allows mailers adequate 

time to install the new data files and test 

their systems. Mailers are expected to 

update their systems with the latest data 

files as soon as practicable and need not 

wait until the ‘‘last permissible use’’ 

date. The mailer’s signature on the 

postage statement certifies that this 

standard has been met when the 

corresponding mail is presented to the 

USPS. The ‘‘current USPS database’’ 

product cycle is defined by the table in 

Exhibit 9.3.1. 

[Delete current table under 9.3.1 and 

add new table as Exhibit 9.3.1 to read 

as follows:] 

EXHIBIT 9.3.1 USPS DATABASE PRODUCT CYCLE

Release date (posted) Product date Required use date Expiration date (last 

permissible use date) Last permissible mailing 

date Use of file released in (Publish date) Must begin no later 

than . . . And must end no later 

than . . . 

Mid-November ................... December 1 ...................... January 1 .......................... February 28/29 .................. March 31. 

Mid-December ................... January 1 .......................... February 1 ......................... March 31 ........................... April 30. 

Mid-January ....................... February 1 ......................... March 1 ............................. April 30 .............................. May 31. 

Mid-February ..................... March 1 ............................. April 1 ................................ May 31 .............................. June 30. 

Mid-March .......................... April 1 ................................ May 1 ................................ June 30 ............................. July 31. 

Mid-April ............................ May 1 ................................ June 1 ............................... July 31 ............................... August 31. 

Mid-May ............................. June 1 ............................... July 1 ................................. August 31 .......................... September 30. 

Mid-June ............................ July 1 ................................. August 1 ............................ September 30 ................... October 31. 

Mid-July ............................. August 1 ............................ September 1 ..................... October 31 ........................ November 30. 

Mid-August ........................ September 1 ..................... October 1 .......................... November 30 .................... December 31. 

Mid-September .................. October 1 .......................... November 1 ...................... December 31 .................... January 31. 

Mid-October ....................... November 1 ...................... December 1 ...................... January 31 ........................ February 28/29. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 33 / Monday, February 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 10509 

1 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015). 

2 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). 

3 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008). 

4 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 1010). 

5 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 

6 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013). 

7Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1 through 10, September 13, 

2013 (hereinafter ‘‘2013 I-SIP Guidance’’). 

* * * * * 

9.5 Documentation 

* * * * * 

9.5.5 Using a Single List 

[Revise the text of 9.5.5 by deleting 

the last sentence.] 

* * * * * 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2020–29031 Filed 2–19–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0604; FRL–10017– 

37-Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Requirements for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from Louisiana submitted on November 

4, 2020 for the 2015 ozone (O3), 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide, 2010 sulfur dioxide and the 

2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). This 

submittal addresses how the existing 

SIP contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions which interfere 

with required measures in any other 

State to protect visibility with respect to 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS as well as the 

2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide, 2010 sulfur dioxide and the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 24, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2020–0604, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

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 (audio, video, etc.) 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. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Jennifer Huser, (214) 665–7347, 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Huser, EPA Region 6 Office, Air 

and Radiation Division—State Planning 

and Implementation Branch, 1201 Elm 

Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, 

214–665–7347, huser.jennifer@epa.gov. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the 

public to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. We encourage the public to 

submit comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA 

establishes NAAQS to protect human 

health and public welfare. On October 

26, 2015, the EPA revised the primary 

and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm to provide 

increased protection of public health 

and public welfare.1 In 2006, the EPA 

revised the PM2.5 NAAQS,2 in 2008, the 

ozone NAAQS,3 in 2010, the nitrogen 

dioxide NAAQS,4 in 2010, the sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS,5 and in 2012, the 

PM2.5 NAAQS.6 The primary standards 

are set to protect human health, while 

secondary standards are set to protect 

public welfare. 

The CAA requires states to submit, 

within 3 years after promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS, SIPs that meet 

the applicable infrastructure elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). This SIP 

submission is commonly referred to as 

an ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ or ‘‘i-SIP’’. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four 

distinct components, commonly 

referred to as prongs, that must be 

addressed in these infrastructure SIP 

submissions. These prongs require that 

states adopt measures that prohibit 

certain adverse air quality effects on 

neighboring states due to interstate 

transport of pollution. Prong 4 requires 

states to demonstrate that their SIP 

contains adequate measures that 

prohibit emissions from any source 

within a state from interfering with the 

visibility protection measures of other 

states (also referred to as visibility 

transport). 

In EPA’s 2013 guidance for states 

regarding i-SIPs,7 EPA discussed its 

interpretation of Prong 4 and its 

relationship to the Regional Haze 

program under CAA sections 169A and 

169B. EPA suggested two options states 

may have to demonstrate that the 

requirements of Prong 4 are met. One 

way in which Prong 4 may be satisfied 

for any relevant NAAQS is through 

confirmation in its infrastructure SIP 

submission that it has an approved 

regional haze SIP that fully meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 

51.309. Alternatively, states may submit 

a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP 

submission that shows that emissions 

within its jurisdiction do not interfere 

with other states’ plans to protect 

visibility. The demonstration must show 

that the state has sufficient measures 

that have been approved into its SIP that 

prevent emissions within its jurisdiction 

from interfering with the visibility 

protection plans of other states. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS