Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 225 / Friday, November 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 82261 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect 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. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or Tribal Government, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting only 3 hours that will 

prohibit entry within a 1000-foot radius 

of a fireworks launch barge. It is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L60(a) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

Record of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket. For instructions 

on locating the docket, see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0908 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0908 Safety Zone; Lake Charles, 

Lake Charles, LA 

(a) Location. All navigable waters 

within a 1000-ft radius of the fireworks 

barge anchored in approximate position 

30°13′45′′ N and 093°13′34′′ W, on Lake 

Charles. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur 

(COTP) in the enforcement of the safety 

zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulation in subpart C of 

this part, entry of vessels or persons into 

this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative on VHF–FM channel 13 

or 16, or by phone at telephone at 337– 

912–0073. 

(3) The COTP or a designated 

representative may forbid and control 

the movement of all vessels in the 

regulated area. When hailed or signaled 

by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall 

come to an immediate stop and comply 

with the directions given. Failure to do 

so may result in expulsion from the 

area, citation for failure to comply, or 

both. 

(4) The COTP or a designated 

representative may terminate the event 

or the operation of any vessel at any 

time it is deemed necessary for the 

protection of life or property. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 

on November 25, 2023. 

(e) Informational broadcasts. The 

COTP or a designated representative 

will inform the public of the effective 

period for the safety zone as well as any 

changes in the dates and times of 

enforcement through Broadcast Notices 

to Mariners and/or Marine Safety 

Information Bulletins as appropriate. 

Dated: November 17, 2023. 

A.R. Migliorini, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25981 Filed 11–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AR76 

Reevaluation of Claims for 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) amends its adjudication 

regulations concerning certain awards of 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation (DIC). Under this 

amendment, relevant claimants will be 

eligible to elect to have certain 

previously denied DIC claims 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
82262 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 225 / Friday, November 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1Text—H.R. 3518—117th Congress (2021–2022): 

Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2021, H.R. 

3518, 117th Cong. (2021), available at https://

www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/ 

3518/text. 

reevaluated pursuant to changes that 

establish or modify a presumption of 

service connection. Any award as a 

result of the reevaluation may be made 

retroactive as if the establishment or 

modification of the presumption of 

service connection had been in effect on 

the date of the submission of the 

original claim. This amendment 

incorporates legislative changes enacted 

by the Sergeant First Class Heath 

Robinson Honoring our Promise to 

Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 

2022 and will bring Federal regulations 

into conformance with those changes. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 23, 

2024. Federal law requires VA to set the 

effective date of major rules such as this 

rule no sooner than 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(3). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Baltimore, Management and Program 

Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service 

(21PF), Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–8863. 

(This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on March 22, 2023, at 88 FR 

17166, VA proposed to amend its 

adjudication regulations concerning 

certain awards of DIC. Under this 

amendment, relevant claimants will be 

eligible to elect to have certain 

previously denied DIC claims 

reevaluated pursuant to changes that 

establish or modify a presumption of 

service connection. Any award as a 

result of the reevaluation may be made 

retroactive as if the establishment or 

modification of the presumption of 

service connection had been in effect on 

the date of the submission of the 

original claim. This amendment 

incorporates legislative changes enacted 

by section 204 of the Sergeant First 

Class Heath Robinson Honoring our 

Promise to Address Comprehensive 

Toxics Act of 2022, or the Honoring our 

PACT Act of 2022, Public Law 117–168 

(herein referred to as ‘‘the PACT Act’’). 

The 60-day public comment period 

ended on May 22, 2023. 

VA received three comments. While 

VA appreciates the commenters’ 

concerns, several of the comments are 

unrelated to the reevaluation of claims 

for DIC under section 204 of the PACT 

Act. VA will not make any changes to 

the rule as proposed based on these 

comments. Nevertheless, VA provides 

the following responses and highlights 

the limitations of this rule based on 

section 204 of the PACT Act. 

The first commenter urged the 

necessity of proposed bill H.R. 3518, the 

‘‘Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 

2021.’’ In particular, the commenter 

emphasized that ‘‘[t]here is a growing 

group of daughters of [A]gent [O]range 

male Veterans that have been ignored 

for years!’’ According to Congress.gov, 

H.R. 3518 was introduced in the House 

and referred to the Committees on 

Veterans’ Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and 

Energy and Commerce on May 25, 2021. 

The Committee on Energy and 

Commerce then referred the resolution 

to the Subcommittee on Health on May 

26, 2021, which was the most recent 

action. As noted in the resolution’s 

summary, ‘‘[u]nder the bill, certain 

benefits will be made available to the 

children of male Vietnam veterans who 

are affected by certain birth defects. 

Currently, these benefits are only 

available to the children of women 

Vietnam veterans.’’ 1 Precisely, 

according to its text, the bill sought, in 

relevant part, to amend subchapter II of 

chapter 18 of 38 U.S.C. by striking all 

references to ‘‘women’’ Vietnam 

Veterans, a change that would have the 

effect of expanding eligibility to the 

children of male Vietnam Veterans as 

noted in the summary. The bill has so 

far not been enacted, and therefore it 

can have no bearing on this or any other 

VA rulemaking. 

The second commenter praised the 

benefits of the PACT Act but 

highlighted three areas where the 

proposed rule was ‘‘underinclusive:’’ (1) 

only DIC claims, and not Veteran’s 

disability claims, can be awarded 

retroactive to the original filing date 

following a reevaluation; (2) only 

previously denied DIC claims where a 

reevaluation was elected, and not 

pending claims for DIC, may be afforded 

a retroactive award; and (3) the 

reevaluation process may only be 

initiated by the original claimant. The 

third commenter also raised the issue of 

DIC claims, and not live Veterans’ 

disability claims, being eligible for the 

special retroactive treatment. To address 

these concerns, VA provides the 

following responses and highlights the 

limitations of this proposed rule based 

on section 204 of the PACT Act. 

First, the new regulation codified by 

this final rule, 38 CFR 3.33, focuses 

solely on reevaluations of previously 

denied DIC claims as discussed in 

section 204 of the PACT Act. Therefore, 

understanding the limitations of section 

204 of the PACT Act, this regulation 

cannot extend retroactivity to the 

original filing date following a 

reevaluation for a Veteran’s disability 

claim. Of note, VA intends to 

implement the PACT Act’s provisions 

on disability benefits in a separate 

rulemaking. See Introduction to the 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 

and Deregulatory Actions—Fall 2022, 88 

FR 10966, 11120 (Feb. 22, 2023) 

(‘‘Updating VA Adjudication 

Regulations for Disability or Death 

Benefits Based on Toxic Exposure.’’). 

The separate rulemaking on disability 

benefits would have its own notice-andcomment period. 

Second, the retroactive provisions 

within the new regulation are limited to 

the reevaluation of a previously denied 

claim for DIC and do not apply to 

retroactivity for a pending DIC claim 

received by VA but not yet decided. 

This conforms to the application of the 

requirements within 38 U.S.C. 

1305(a)(3), as added by section 204(a) of 

the PACT Act. Retroactive application is 

not authorized for the additional 

presumptive diseases prescribed within 

the PACT Act outside of section 204. 

We note that this commenter raised the 

concern of a DIC claimant whose claim 

is awaiting review by the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals at the time the new 

presumption goes into effect, potentially 

losing multiple years’ worth of benefits. 

The commenter’s concern proceeds 

from the premise that a claim cannot 

qualify for special retroactive treatment 

under section 204 of the PACT Act 

while the claim is pending on appeal. 

The statute requires only that the claim 

have been ‘‘denied,’’ not that the denial 

have become final due to either passage 

of the appellate review period or final 

denial on appeal. We do not believe 

there is any textual ambiguity on this 

point. However, to the extent some may 

disagree, VA notes that disqualifying a 

DIC claim from special retroactive 

treatment due to a pending appeal 

would have the perverse effect of 

disincentivizing claimants from 

pursuing their appellate rights. This is 

particularly concerning in light of the 

fact that a claimant would have to be 

making the decision of whether to 

appeal before he or she knew with 

certainty whether the new presumption 

would in fact go into effect. 

Accordingly, VA now clarifies that an 

initial denial at the regional office level 

is all that is needed. We acknowledge 

that even under this interpretation, the 

commenter’s concern retains some force 

in the context of a claim that is awaiting 

a decision when the presumption goes 

into effect. This outcome is 

unavoidable, however, as in this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 225 / Friday, November 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 82263 

situation there is no denial available to 

trigger application of the statutory 

language. VA notes that in this scenario, 

the effective date difference between the 

original claim date and the effective 

date of the new presumption ordinarily 

should be minimal. 

Third, as noted in the proposed 

rulemaking, the PACT Act is silent on 

the accrued benefits or substitution 

processes as they relate to the 

reevaluation of previously denied DIC 

claims. As such, VA must utilize the 

existing processes regarding accrued 

benefits and substitution contained in 

38 U.S.C. 5121 and 5121A. Thus, a 

claimant may request to be substituted 

for the original claimant for the 

purposes of processing a DIC 

reevaluation claim to completion, but 

only if the original claimant elected to 

have the previously denied DIC claim 

reevaluated. 

Of note, federal law allows 

substitution only for claims that are 

already pending at the time of the 

claimant’s death. 38 U.S.C. 5121A(a)(1). 

Consistent with that restriction, the 

PACT Act expressly allows reevaluation 

only ‘‘at the election of the claimant.’’ 

38 U.S.C. 1305(a)(2) (italics added). So, 

if a DIC claimant dies before requesting 

reevaluation under the PACT Act, there 

is no mechanism available allowing the 

claim to be reevaluated by a party 

secondary to the DIC claimant. VA 

makes no changes to the rule based on 

these comments. 

The third commenter offered general 

observations on the PACT Act’s 

implications for ‘‘retroactive disability 

payments’’ and ‘‘original effective 

dates,’’ and requested retroactive 

benefits for himself based on the PACT 

Act effective to the original date of his 

claims for disability compensation that 

VA previously denied. These comments 

are unrelated to the reevaluation of 

claims for DIC under section 204 of the 

PACT Act, as such they will not result 

in any changes being made to the rule. 

As noted, VA intends to implement the 

PACT Act’s provisions on disability 

benefits in a separate rulemaking. 

Of note, when VA grants an award 

based on a change in law (like the PACT 

Act), federal law generally limits the 

effective date of that award to no earlier 

than the effective date of the change in 

law. 38 U.S.C. 5110(g). That same law 

also provides that ‘‘[i]n no event’’ may 

the effective date of an award granted 

because of a change in law be earlier 

than one year before the date of the 

associated claim or the date of the 

administrative determination of 

entitlement, whichever date is earlier. 

Therefore, if a Veteran files a PACT Act 

claim and VA grants the claim, the 

Veteran could still obtain these limited 

periods of retroactivity, but the law 

limits the effective date of that grant to 

no earlier than one year before the 

Veteran filed the claim, and no earlier 

than the effective date of the change in 

law. 

VA recognizes the concern that the 

second and third commenters have 

raised regarding the different retroactive 

effective date treatments between DIC 

claims and disability compensation 

claims for live Veterans. It is 

understandable that a Veteran who has 

been living with a disability for some 

time before that disability became 

subject to presumptive service 

connection would object to this 

difference, as these two commenters 

have. Congress has determined that 

claims for service-connected death 

should receive special retroactive 

effective dates, while compensation 

claims for living Veterans must continue 

to be subject to traditional effective date 

rules. 

VA does not have authority to 

contradict ordinarily applicable 

statutory effective date law. As the U.S. 

Supreme Court explained in January 

2023, the effective date provisions in 

section 5110 of title 38, United States 

Code, are not only time constraints, but 

they also express Congress’s intent to 

limit, subject to enumerated exceptions, 

the amounts of payments Veterans may 

receive. Arellano v. McDonough, 143 S. 

Ct. 543, 549 (2023). The constraints in 

38 U.S.C. 5110(g) therefore apply unless 

displaced by a specific statutory 

effective date mechanism, as Congress 

did here for DIC. We note that if a DIC 

claim (or any claim) was pending when 

the PACT Act went into effect, VA will, 

and indeed must, complete the 

processing of that claim to determine if 

an earlier effective date on a direct basis 

(as distinguished from a presumptive 

basis) is possible. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) directs agencies 

to assess the costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

14094 (Executive Order on Modernizing 

Regulatory Review) supplements and 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing contemporary 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 

and Executive Order 13563 of January 

18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review). The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rulemaking is a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, Section 3(f)(1), 

as amended by Executive Order 14094. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

associated with this rulemaking can be 

found as a supporting document at 

www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612). Therefore, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do 

not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This final rule would have no 

such effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule includes provisions 

constituting a revised collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521) that require approval by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), 

VA has submitted a copy of this 

rulemaking action to OMB for review 

and approval. OMB has reviewed and 

approved this revised collection of 

information. 

Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review Act, 

this regulatory action may result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and so 

is subject to the 60-day delay in 

effective date under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), 

VA will submit to the Comptroller 

General and to Congress a copy of this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
82264 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 225 / Friday, November 24, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulation and the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) associated with the 

Regulation. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, signed and approved 

this document on November 16, 2023, 

and authorized the undersigned to sign 

and submit the document to the Office 

of the Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulation Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 3 as set 

forth below: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Remove the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘General’’ following § 3.32 and 

add § 3.33 to read as follows: 

§ 3.33 Reevaluation of Claims for 

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 

Involving Presumptions of Service 

Connection Following Enactment of Public 

Law 117–168. 

(a) Purpose. This section states 

effective date and election rules based 

on amendments made under Public Law 

117–168, which provides for the 

reevaluation of certain previously 

denied dependency and indemnity 

compensation (DIC) claims when a law 

establishes or modifies a presumption of 

service connection. 

(b) Definitions. For purpose of this 

section: 

(1) Law means any law, regulation, or 

Federal court decision or settlement 

establishing or modifying a presumption 

of service connection. 

(2) Relevant claimant means an 

individual who submitted a claim for 

DIC to VA that was evaluated and 

denied by VA before the date on which 

such a provision of law went into effect 

and might have been evaluated 

differently had the establishment or 

modification of the service connection 

presumption been applicable to the 

claim. 

(c) Election of review—(1) General. 

VA will not reevaluate under this 

section any previously denied claim for 

DIC prior to election by the relevant 

claimant. 

(2) Form of election. Reevaluation of 

a previously denied DIC claim must be 

at the election of the relevant claimant 

on a prescribed form pursuant to 

§ 3.152(a). 

(d) Effective date of award. If a 

relevant claimant is found entitled to 

DIC based on the establishment or 

modification of a presumption of service 

connection, the effective date of the 

award will be as follows: 

(1) If VA denied a claim for DIC prior 

to a law defined under (b)(1) of this 

section that establishes or modifies a 

presumption of service connection on or 

after August 10, 2022 (the date of 

enactment of Pub. L. 117–168), the 

effective date of the award will be 

determined as if the establishment or 

modification of the presumption of 

service connection had been in effect on 

the date of the submission of the 

original claim. 

(2) If the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(1) are not met, the effective date of 

the award shall be determined in 

accordance with §§ 3.114 and 3.400. 

(e) Outreach and identification of 

relevant claimants. (1) VA will conduct 

the following efforts to inform relevant 

claimants that they may elect to have a 

claim reevaluated in light of the 

establishment or modification of a 

presumption of service connection: 

(i) Publish on the internet website of 

the Department a notice that such 

claimants may elect to have a claim so 

reevaluated; 

(ii) Notify, in writing or by electronic 

means, veterans service organizations of 

the ability of such claimants to elect to 

have a claim so reevaluated; and 

(iii) Notify each such claimant in the 

same manner that the Department last 

provided notice of a decision. 

(Authority 38 U.S.C. 501, 1305) 

[FR Doc. 2023–25836 Filed 11–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Domestic Competitive Products 

Pricing and Mailing Standards 

Changes 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

amending Mailing Standards of the 

United States Postal Service, Domestic 

Mail Manual (DMM®), to reflect changes 

to prices and mailing standards for 

competitive products. 

DATES: Effective January 21, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Jarboe at (202) 268–7690, 

Catherine Knox (202) 268–5636, or 

Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268–7281. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule describes new prices and product 

features for competitive products, by 

class of mail, established by the 

Governors of the United States Postal 

Service®. New prices are available 

under Docket Number CP2024–52 on 

the Postal Regulatory Commission PRC 

website at http://www.prc.gov, and on 

the Postal Explorer® website at http://

pe.usps.com. 

The Postal Service will revise Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

to reflect changes to certain prices and 

mailing standards for the following 

competitive products: 

• Priority Mail Express®. 

• Priority Mail®. 

• USPS Ground AdvantageTM. 

• Parcel Select®. 

• Extra Services. 

• Return Services. 

• Mailer Services. 

• Recipient Services. 

• Other. 

Competitive product prices and 

changes are identified by product as 

follows: 

Priority Mail Express 

Prices 

Overall, Priority Mail Express prices 

will increase 5.9 percent. Priority Mail 

Express will continue to offer zoned and 

Flat Rate, Retail and Commercial 

pricing. 

Retail prices will increase an average 

of 5.9 percent. The Flat Rate Envelope 

price will increase to $30.45, the Legal 

Flat Rate Envelope will increase to 

$30.65, and the Padded Flat Rate 

Envelope will increase to $31.20. 

Commercial prices will increase an 

average of 5.9 percent. 

Priority Mail 

Prices 

Overall, Priority Mail prices will 

increase 5.7 percent. Priority Mail will 

continue to offer zoned and Flat Rate, 

Retail and Commercial pricing. 

Retail prices will increase an average 

of 5.6 percent. The Flat Rate Envelope 

price will increase to $9.85, the Legal 

Flat Rate Envelope will increase to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1