Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32069 

12 17 U.S.C. 1005. 

13See 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. 

16Electronic Payment of Royalties, 71 FR 45739 

(Aug. 10, 2006). 

17Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License 

Reporting Practices, 82 FR 56926, 56935–36 (Dec. 

1, 2017). 

18Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License 

Reporting Practices, 83 FR 26229 (Jun. 6, 2018). 

1Petition 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). 

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. 

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, 

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. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

Proposed Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office proposes 

amending 37 CFR part 201 as follows: 

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. 

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 

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 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 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
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: 

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. 

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 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 

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 http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal Seven no later 

than September 5, 2018. Pursuant to 39 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 

1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508 

[Docket No. CEQ–2018–0001] 

RIN 0331–AA03 

Update to the Regulations for 

Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

AGENCY: Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS