Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27523 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Three), 

June 1, 2018 (Petition). 

2 Docket No. ACR2017, Annual Compliance 

Report, December 29, 2017, at 4–6. 

3 Docket No. ACR2017, Annual Compliance 

Determination, March 29, 2018, at 8. 

of the APA or any other law to publish 

a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Additionally, this action is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, 

accordingly, this action has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

This action will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) it is determined that this 

action does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, the DEA 

proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as 

follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

956(b), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 1308.11, add paragraph (h)(36) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(36) N-Ethylpentylone, its optical, 

positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers 

(Other names: ephylone, N-1- 

(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2- 

(ethylamino)-1-pentanone) .......... (7543) 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 6, 2018. 

Robert W. Patterson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12669 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2018–6; Order No. 4635] 

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 Three). 

This document informs the public of the 

filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: June 29, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http://

www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit 

comments electronically should contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

telephone for advice on filing 

alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 

202–789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Proposal Three 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On June 1, 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 Three. 

II. Proposal Three 

Background. The Commission 

adopted the use of incremental costs as 

the basis for class-level and productlevel attributable costs in September of 

2016.2 In FY 2017, the methodology was 

fully applied for the first time.3 Proposal 

Three seeks to revise two incremental 

costing procedures in accordance with 

this methodological change. 

The first proposed revision concerns 

the Postal Service’s method for 

calculating incremental costs for 

competitive products collectively. 

Under current analytical principles, the 

Postal Service calculates these costs 

using a so-called ‘‘hybrid’’ approach. 

The Postal Service first calculates the 

incremental costs of competitive 

domestic products (including group 

specific costs for these products) and 

then adds it to the volume variable and 

product specific costs of competitive 

international products. This ‘‘hybrid’’ 

approach blends an estimate of 

competitive domestic incremental costs 

with a proxy estimate of competitive 

international incremental costs. 

The second proposed revision relates 

to estimating inframarginal costs for 

products with insufficient data at the 

cost pool level. The Postal Service states 

that this revision primarily concerns 

negotiated service agreements (NSAs), 

because NSAs are classified as 

independent products, which can have 

low volumes. Petition, Proposal Three at 

1. Furthermore, the Postal Service 

contends that NSAs create practical 

issues in calculating incremental costs, 

in part because the Postal Service’s data 

systems do not distinguish between 

NSA and non-NSA mailpieces. Id. at 13. 

This prevents the Postal Service from 

creating the standard cost drivers for 

NSAs (e.g. volume, weight, cubic 

volume), which are necessary for 

calculating incremental costs. Id. 

Proposal. As discussed above, the 

Postal Service proposes two procedures 

to revise its calculation of incremental 

costs. 

Under procedure one, the Postal 

Service seeks to replace the ‘‘hybrid’’ 

approach to calculating aggregate 

incremental costs, which relies on a 

proxy for international costs, with a 

direct estimation of those costs. Id. at 4. 

Due to improvements suggested in the 

FY 2016 Annual Compliance 

Determination, in conjunction with 

corresponding analytical improvements, 

the Postal Service states that it can now 

directly estimate the actual incremental 

costs of international mail. Id. at 6. 

Under procedure two, the Postal 

Service proposes thresholds for 

calculating inframarginal costs and an 

alternative methodology for 

approximating the appropriate cost 

driver ratios for NSAs. Id. at 8. 

Specifically, the Postal Service suggests 

that it should not have to calculate the 

incremental costs if an NSA has less 

than 0.3 percent of the product type’s 

(e.g. Priority Mail, Parcel Select) volume 

variable cost or less than $8 million in 

volume variable cost. Id. at 11. The 

Postal Service also seeks to use the ratio 

of NSA volume variable costs to product 

type volume variable costs as a proxy 

cost driver to calculate the incremental 

cost of NSA products. Id. at 12–20. 

Rationale and impact. The Postal 

Service contends that procedure one 

will allow it ‘‘to rely upon the best 

available information’’ because the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

procedure replaces the hybrid 

approach’s proxy incremental costs with 

actual estimation of the incremental 

costs of international products. Id. at 7. 

The Postal Service comments that 

‘‘[t]his alone constitute[s] a clear 

improvement over past practice.’’ Id. at 

6. Furthermore, the Postal Service notes 

that the change will allow ‘‘the 

incremental cost model to directly 

estimate the costs of producing all 

competitive products simultaneously, 

and thus provide exactly the 

information needed to fully conduct the 

cross-subsidy test as intended.’’ Id. at 7. 

The Postal Service estimates that the 

impact of procedure one would be to 

raise competitive product incremental 

costs by 0.2 percent. Id. at 7–8. The 

Postal Service estimates that amount to 

be approximately $25 million. Id. 

The Postal Service argues that 

procedure two’s proposed thresholds 

are appropriate because its testing 

suggests that NSAs ‘‘have no 

appreciable inframarginal costs’’ below 

these thresholds. Id. at 11. The Postal 

Service argues that ‘‘when a product has 

a very small volume relative to the other 

products handled in the activity or cost 

pool, the product’s volume variable cost 

and incremental cost will virtually be 

the same.’’ Id. at 9. For that reason, the 

Postal Service avers that ‘‘the 

calculation of incremental costs for the 

hundreds of domestic NSA’s with 

minimal volumes would require a 

material amount of scarce Postal Service 

resources, and the resulting incremental 

cost estimates for those products would 

not be practically different from their 

volume variable costs.’’ Id. at 12. The 

Postal Service concludes that it and the 

Commission ‘‘are better served when the 

Postal Service expends those resources 

on other, critical, costing issues.’’ Id. 

With regard to procedure two’s 

proposed cost driver change, the Postal 

Service states that it ‘‘is not possible 

. . . to generate the required cost driver 

proportions for specific NSA products.’’ 

Id. at 13. For this reason, the Postal 

Service proposes to use ‘‘the volume 

variable cost ratio as a proxy for the 

unknown true variable, the ratio of the 

cost drivers.’’ Id. at 17. In the Postal 

Service’s view ‘‘the approximation used 

for the missing driver ratios should 

reflect the characteristics of the missing 

information as well as possible.’’ Id. at 

13. 

The Postal Service states that the 

impacts associated with procedure two 

are ‘‘less clear cut’’ than procedure one 

because ‘‘there is no intuitive baseline 

against which to compare [results].’’ Id. 

at 20. The Postal Service explains that 

‘‘[i]n theory, the logical baseline would 

be actual inframarginal costs calculated 

using actual data at the cost pool level.’’ 

Id. However, ‘‘since the very reason we 

must rely on the approximation is 

because such actual data at that level do 

not exist, that theoretical baseline does 

not exist either.’’ Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–6 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal Three no later 

than June 29, 2018. Pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin 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. RM2018–6 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 Three), filed June 1, 

2018. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

June 29, 2018. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Katalin K. 

Clendenin 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. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12646 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Ch. I 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2018–0107; FRL–9979–41– 

OP] 

RIN 2010–AA12 

Increasing Consistency and 

Transparency in Considering Costs 

and Benefits in the Rulemaking 

Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA promulgates regulations 

under authority provided in the federal 

environmental statutes such as the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act 

(CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), and many others. Most 

statutory provisions require or allow 

some consideration of cost and benefits 

when setting pollution standards, but 

there is variation in terminology and 

specificity provided in each law 

regarding the nature and scope of the 

cost and benefit considerations. In this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM), EPA is soliciting comment on 

whether and how EPA should 

promulgate regulations that provide a 

consistent and transparent 

interpretation relating to the 

consideration of weighing costs and 

benefits in making regulatory decisions 

in a manner consistent with applicable 

authorizing statutes. EPA is also 

soliciting comment on whether and how 

these regulations, if promulgated, could 

also prescribe specific analytic 

approaches to quantifying the costs and 

benefits of EPA regulations. This 

ANPRM does not propose any 

regulatory requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2018–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 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, 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-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this document, 

please contact Elizabeth Kopits, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1