Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23173 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for the address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the Northwest 

Mountain Regional Office of the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, Western Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at WattsWoodland Airport, Woodland, CA. 

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary 

due to the proposed decommissioning 

of the Travis VOR and would enhance 

the safety and management of aircraft 

operations at the airport. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005, of FAA 

Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, 

and effective September 15, 2011, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

Part 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designation listed in this document will 

be published subsequently in this 

Order. 

The FAA has determined this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

modify controlled airspace at WattsWoodland Airport, Woodland, CA. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Woodland, CA [Amended] 

Woodland, Watts-Woodland Airport, CA 

(Lat. 38°40′26′′ N., long. 121°52′20′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 2.6-mile 

radius of Watts-Woodland Airport, and 

within 2.6 miles each side of the WattsWoodland Airport 133° bearing extending 

from the 2.6-mile radius to 8.1 miles 

southeast of the Watts-Woodland Airport, 

and within 1.8 miles each side of the WattsWoodland Airport 172° bearing extending 

from the 2.6-mile radius to 6 miles south of 

the airport, and within 1.9 miles each side of 

the Watts-Woodland Airport 345° bearing 

extending from the 2.6-mile radius to 7 miles 

north of the airport. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 11, 

2012. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9318 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 006–2012] 

Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, United States 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) proposes to 

amend its Privacy Act regulations for 

the modified system of records entitled 

the Investigative Reporting and Filing 

System (IRFS) (JUSTICE/DEA–008), 

published April 11, 2012 in the Federal 

Register. This system will be exempt 

from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), 

(2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), 

(H), (I), (5), and (8); (f); (g); and (h) of 

the Privacy Act of 1974 for the reasons 

set forth in the following text. The 

exemptions are necessary to avoid 

interference with the law enforcement 

and counterterrorism functions and 

responsibilities of the DEA. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 18, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to 

the Department of Justice, Attn: Privacy 

Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties, Department of Justice, 

National Place Building, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20530 or by facsimile 

(202) 307–0693. To ensure proper 

handling, please reference the CPCLO 

Order number in your correspondence. 

You may review an electronic version of 

the proposed rule at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and may also 

comment at http://www.regulations.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

23174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Please include the CPCLO Order 

number in the subject box. 

Please note that the Department is 

requesting that electronic comments be 

submitted before midnight Eastern 

Standard Time on the day the comment 

period closes because http:// 

www.regulations.gov terminates the 

public’s ability to submit comments at 

that time. Commenters in time zones 

other than Eastern Standard Time may 

want to consider this so that their 

electronic comments are received. All 

comments sent via regular or express 

mail will be considered timely if 

postmarked on the day the comment 

period closes. 

Posting of Public Comments: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov 

and in the Department’s public docket. 

Such information includes personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by you as the commenter. 

If you want to submit personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also place 

all the personally identifying 

information you do not want posted 

online or made available in the public 

docket in the first paragraph of your 

comment and identify what information 

you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online or made available in the 

public docket, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted online or made 

available in the public docket. 

Personally identifying information 

and confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be redacted and the comment, in 

redacted form, will be posted online and 

placed in the Department’s public 

docket file. Please note that the Freedom 

of Information Act applies to all 

comments received. If you wish to 

inspect the agency’s public docket file 

in person by appointment, please see 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEA 

Headquarters, Attn: Bettie E. Goldman, 

CCA/Chief, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, VA 22152, 202–307–3624. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule seeks to amend 28 CFR 

16.98 to add paragraphs (i) and (j) as set 

forth below and to delete all references 

to ‘‘Investigative Reporting and Filing 

System (Justice/DEA–008)’’ from 

paragraphs (c) and (d) and to renumber 

the subparagraphs in paragraph (c) 

accordingly. These modified paragraphs 

exempt the ‘‘Investigative Reporting and 

Filing System (IRFS), JUSTICE/DEA– 

008’’ (77 FR 21808) from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act, as 

amended. 

In this rulemaking, the Department of 

Justice proposes to exempt certain 

records in this Privacy Act system of 

records from certain provisions of the 

Privacy Act because the system contains 

material compiled for law enforcement 

purposes. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule relates to 

individuals as opposed to small 

business entities. Pursuant to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that 

the Department of Justice consider the 

impact of paperwork and other 

information collection burdens imposed 

on the public. There is no current or 

new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, requires federal 

agencies to assess the effects of certain 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments, and the private 

sector. UMRA requires a written 

statement of economic and regulatory 

alternatives for proposed and final rules 

that contain Federal mandates. A 

‘‘federal mandate’’ is a new or 

additional enforceable duty, imposed on 

any state, local, or tribal government, or 

the private sector. If any federal 

mandate causes those entities to spend, 

in aggregate, $100 million or more in 

any one year the UMRA analysis is 

required. This proposed rule would not 

impose federal mandates on any state, 

local, or tribal government or the private 

sector. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

Information Act, Government in the 

Sunshine Act, and the Privacy Act. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order 2940–2008, it is proposed to 

amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows: 

PART 16—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 

552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 

509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

2. In § 16.98, revise paragraphs (c) and 

(d) introductory text and add paragraphs 

(i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 16.98 Exemption of Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA)—limited access. 

* * * * * 

(c) Systems of records identified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this 

section are exempted pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from 

subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), 

and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (8); and 

(g) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. In addition, systems 

of records identified in paragraphs 

(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of 

this section are also exempted pursuant 

to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) 

from subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3) 

and (4); and (e)(1): 

(1) Air Intelligence Program (Justice/ 

DEA–001) 

(2) Clandestine Laboratory Seizure 

System (CLSS) (Justice/DEA–002) 

(3) Planning and Inspection Division 

Records (Justice/DEA–010) 

(4) Operation Files (Justice/DEA–011) 

(5) Security Files (Justice/DEA–013) 

(6) System to Retrieve Information from 

Drug Evidence (STRIDE/Ballistics) 

(Justice/DEA–014) 

(d) Exemptions apply to the following 

systems of records only to the extent 

that information in the systems is 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), and (k)(2): Air 

Intelligence Program (Justice/DEA–001); 

Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System 

(CLSS) (Justice/DEA–002); Planning and 

Inspection Division Records (Justice/ 

DEA–010); and Security Files (Justice/ 

DEA–013). Exemptions apply to the 

Operations Files (Justice/DEA–011) only 

to the extent that information in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23175 

system is subject to exemption pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). 

Exemptions apply to the System to 

Retrieve Information from Drug 

Evidence (STRIDE/Ballistics) (Justice/ 

DEA–014) only to the extent that 

information in the system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j)(2). Exemption from the 

particular subsections is justified for the 

following reasons: 

* * * * * 

(i) The following system of records is 

exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); 

(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), 

(4)(G), (H), (I), (5), and (8); (f); (g); and 

(h): Investigative Reporting and Filing 

System (IRFS) (JUSTICE/DEA–008). 

These exemptions apply only to the 

extent that information in this system is 

subject to exemption pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), or (k)(2). Where 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the law 

enforcement or counterterrorism 

purposes of this system, or the overall 

law enforcement process, the applicable 

exemption may be waived by the DEA 

in its sole discretion. 

(j) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3) because to 

provide the subject with an accounting 

of disclosure of records in this system 

could impede or compromise an 

ongoing investigation, interfere with a 

law enforcement activity, lead to the 

disclosure of properly classified 

information which could compromise 

the national defense or disrupt foreign 

policy, invade the privacy of a person 

who provides information in connection 

with a particular investigation, or result 

in danger to an individual’s safety, 

including the safety of a law 

enforcement officer. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) because this 

subsection is inapplicable to the extent 

that an exemption is being claimed for 

subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 

(3) From subsection (d)(1) because 

disclosure of records in the system 

could alert the subject of an 

investigation of an actual or potential 

criminal, civil, or regulatory violation of 

the existence of that investigation, of the 

nature and scope of the information and 

evidence obtained as to his activities, of 

the identity of confidential witnesses 

and informants, of the investigative 

interest of the DEA, and lead to the 

destruction of evidence, improper 

influencing of witnesses, fabrication of 

testimony, and/or flight of the subject; 

reveal the details of a sensitive 

investigative or intelligence technique, 

or the identity of a confidential source; 

or otherwise impede, compromise, or 

interfere with investigative efforts and 

other related law enforcement and/or 

intelligence activities. In addition, 

disclosure could invade the privacy of 

third parties and/or endanger the life, 

health, and physical safety of law 

enforcement personnel, confidential 

informants, witnesses, and potential 

crime victims. Access to records could 

also result in the release of information 

properly classified pursuant to 

Executive Order, thereby compromising 

the national defense or foreign policy. 

(4) From subsection (d)(2) because 

amendment of the records thought to be 

incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely would 

also interfere with ongoing 

investigations, criminal or civil law 

enforcement proceedings, and other law 

enforcement activities, and impose an 

impossible administrative burden by 

requiring investigations, analyses, and 

reports to be continuously 

reinvestigated and revised, as well as 

may impact information properly 

classified pursuant to Executive Order. 

(5) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) 

because these subsections are 

inapplicable to the extent exemption is 

claimed from (d)(1) and (2). 

(6) From subsection (e)(1) because, in 

the course of its acquisition, collation, 

and analysis of information under the 

statutory authority granted to it, an 

agency may occasionally obtain 

information, including information 

properly classified pursuant to 

Executive Order, that concerns actual or 

potential violations of law that are not 

strictly within its statutory or other 

authority or may compile information in 

the course of an investigation which 

may not be relevant to a specific 

prosecution. It is impossible to 

determine in advance what information 

collected during an investigation will be 

important or crucial to the apprehension 

of fugitives. In the interests of effective 

law enforcement, it is necessary to 

retain such information in this system of 

records because it can aid in 

establishing patterns of criminal activity 

and can provide valuable leads for 

federal and other law enforcement 

agencies. This consideration applies 

equally to information acquired from, or 

collated or analyzed for, both law 

enforcement agencies and agencies of 

the U.S. foreign intelligence community 

and military community. 

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because in 

a criminal investigation, prosecution, or 

proceeding, the requirement that 

information be collected to the greatest 

extent practicable from the subject 

individual would present a serious 

impediment to law enforcement because 

the subject of the investigation, 

prosecution, or proceeding would be 

placed on notice as to the existence and 

nature of the investigation, prosecution, 

and proceeding and would therefore be 

able to avoid detection or apprehension, 

to influence witnesses improperly, to 

destroy evidence, or to fabricate 

testimony. Moreover, thorough and 

effective investigation and prosecution 

may require seeking information from a 

number of different sources. 

(8) From subsection (e)(3) because the 

requirement that individuals supplying 

information be provided a form stating 

the requirements of subsection (e)(3) 

would constitute a serious impediment 

to criminal law enforcement in that it 

could compromise the existence of a 

confidential investigation or reveal the 

identity of witnesses or confidential 

informants and endanger their lives, 

health, and physical safety. The 

individual could seriously interfere 

with undercover investigative 

techniques and could take appropriate 

steps to evade the investigation or flee 

a specific area. 

(9) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), 

and (I) because this system is exempt 

from the access provisions of subsection 

(d) pursuant to subsections (j) and (k) of 

the Privacy Act. 

(10) From subsection (e)(5) because 

the acquisition, collation, and analysis 

of information for criminal law 

enforcement purposes from various 

agencies does not permit a 

determination in advance or a 

prediction of what information will be 

matched with other information and 

thus whether it is accurate, relevant, 

timely, and complete. With the passage 

of time, seemingly irrelevant or 

untimely information may acquire new 

significance as further investigation 

brings new details to light and the 

accuracy of such information can often 

only be determined in a court of law. 

The restrictions imposed by subsection 

(e)(5) would restrict the ability of 

trained investigators, intelligence 

analysts, and government attorneys to 

exercise their judgment in collating and 

analyzing information and would 

impede the development of criminal or 

other intelligence necessary for effective 

law enforcement. 

(11) From subsection (e)(8) because 

the individual notice requirements of 

subsection (e)(8) could present a serious 

impediment to criminal law 

enforcement by revealing investigative 

techniques, procedures, evidence, or 

interest and interfering with the ability 

to issue warrants or subpoenas, and 

could give persons sufficient warning to 

evade investigative efforts. 

(12) From subsections (f) and (g) 

because this subsection is inapplicable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

23176 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Docket No. N75–1, Retail Analysis for Facilities 

Development Program; Docket No. N75–2, Changes 

in Operating Procedures Affecting First-Class Mail 

and Airmail; Docket No. N86–1, Change in Service, 

1986, Collect on Delivery Service; Docket No. N89– 

1, Change in Service, 1989, First-Class Delivery 

Standards Realignment; Docket No. N2006–1, 

Evolutionary Network Development Service 

Changes, 2006. 

2 Docket No. N2009–1, Station and Branch 

Optimization and Consolidation Initiative, 2009; 

Docket No. N2010–1, Six-Day to Five-Day Street 

Delivery and Related Service Changes, 2010; Docket 

No. N2011–1, Retail Access Optimization Initiative, 

2011; Docket No. N2012–1, Mail Processing 

Network Rationalization Service Changes, 2012. 

3 Docket No. N2009–1, Station and Branch 

Optimization and Consolidation Initiative, 2009; 

Docket No. N2010–1, Six-Day to Five-Day Street 

Delivery and Related Service Changes, 2010; Docket 

No. N2011–1, Retail Access Optimization Initiative, 

2011. 

4 In Docket No. N2009–1, the Postal Service filed 

its request on July 2, 2009, and the Commission 

issued its advisory opinion 8 months later on March 

10, 2010. In Docket No. N2010–1, the Postal Service 

filed its request on March 30, 2010, and the 

Commission issued its advisory opinion nearly 12 

months later on March 24, 2011. In Docket No. 

N2011–1, the Postal Service filed its request on July 

27, 2011, and the Commission issued its advisory 

opinion almost 5 months later on December 23, 

2011. 

to the extent that the system is exempt 

from other specific subsections of the 

Privacy Act. 

(13) From subsection (h) when 

application of those provisions could 

impede or compromise an ongoing 

criminal investigation, interfere with a 

law enforcement activity, reveal an 

investigatory technique or confidential 

source, invade the privacy of a person 

who provides information for an 

investigation, or endanger law 

enforcement personnel. 

Dated: March 12, 2012. 

Nancy C. Libin, 

Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, 

United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8769 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3001 

[Docket No. RM2012–4; Order No. 1309] 

Revisions to Procedural Rules 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

establishing a docket to consider 

proposed changes in procedures for 

handling cases under 39 U.S.C. 3661. 

These cases involve changes in the 

nature of postal services which affect 

service on a nationwide or substantially 

nationwide basis. The Commission 

invites comments from interested 

persons on ways to improve and 

expedite its procedures, consistent with 

due process. Following review of the 

comments, the Commission may 

institute a rulemaking proceeding to 

consider adoption of updated 

procedures. 

DATES: Comments Date: June 18, 2012. 

Reply Comment Date: July 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Legal Requirements 

III. Commission’s Section 701 Report 

IV. Commission’s Authority To Modify 

Procedures 

V. Comment Procedures 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Background 

The Commission is soliciting 

comments on its current procedures 

under 39 U.S.C. 3661 for reviewing 

proposals by the Postal Service to make 

changes in the nature of postal services. 

After reviewing the comments 

submitted in this proceeding, the 

Commission may institute rulemaking 

proceedings to consider the adoption of 

new, updated procedures for processing 

nature of service cases. The goal of any 

such changes would be to increase the 

efficiency and timely resolution of 

nature of service cases while protecting 

the rights of all participants, including 

affected mail users. 

In this proceeding, the Commission 

welcomes comments on (1) whether 

changes to the current procedures and 

regulations are warranted; (2) if so, what 

those changes would be; and (3) such 

other relevant subjects as commenters 

may wish to address. 

Nature of service proceedings 

conducted pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661 

have traditionally been referred to as 

‘‘N-cases.’’ In N-cases, the Commission 

issues advisory opinions on proposals 

by the Postal Service for ‘‘a change in 

the nature of postal services which will 

generally affect service on a nationwide, 

or substantially nationwide basis 

* * *.’’ 39 U.S.C. 3661(b). 

The Commission’s authority to 

conduct N-cases was originally 

established by the Postal Reorganization 

Act of 1970, Public Law 91–375, August 

12, 1970 (PRA). Five N-cases were 

initiated between the enactment of the 

PRA in 1970 and the passage 36 years 

later of the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3219 (2006).1 In the 

5 years since passage of the PAEA, the 

Commission has docketed four N-cases.2

The varying degrees of complexity 

presented by N-cases affects the time 

required to issue advisory opinions. 

Ordinarily, cases that present the most 

far-reaching implications to mailers 

require more extensive procedures and 

a greater time between the initial filing 

and the issuance of an advisory opinion 

by the Commission. To date, the 

Commission has issued advisory 

opinions in three of the four N-cases 

instituted since enactment of the 

PAEA.3 The length of those proceedings 

ranged from a low of 5 months in 

Docket No. N2011–1 to a high of 12 

months in Docket No. N2010–1.4 The 

fourth post-PAEA proceeding was filed 

on December 5, 2011, and remains 

pending. 

Recently, the Postal Service has found 

itself in an extremely challenging 

financial situation, and is seeking to act 

quickly to remedy its financial 

difficulties. The Postal Service has 

expressed a need for a more expeditious 

hearing process for N-cases in light of its 

present financial situation. Thus, the 

Commission is soliciting comments on 

the advisability of adjusting N-case 

procedures in ways that allow more 

timely and relevant advisory opinions. 

II. Legal Requirements 

A. 39 U.S.C. 3661 

If the Postal Service determines that a 

change in the nature of its services that 

will affect mail users on a nationwide or 

substantially nationwide basis may be 

called for, it must, prior to 

implementation, submit a proposal to 

the Commission requesting an advisory 

opinion on the proposed changes. 39 

U.S.C. 3661(b). After the request is 

submitted, the Postal Service, mail 

users, and an officer of the Commission 

required to represent the interests of the 

general public must be afforded an 

opportunity for a hearing on the record 

in accordance with the provisions of 5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS