Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 6927 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service to 

Initiate a Proceeding to Change Analytical 

Principles and Notice of Filing Non-Public 

Materials, December 19, 2024 (Petition). The 

proposed change is attached to the Petition 

(Proposal). 

2 Id. at 1–2 (citing Docket No. RM2020–1, Order 

on Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting 

(Proposal Nine), August 17, 2020 (Order No. 5637)). 

3 Id. (citing Docket No. RM2022–1, Notice and 

Order of Proposed Rulemaking on Periodic 

Reporting, October 8, 2021 (Order No. 6004); Docket 

No. RM2022–1, Initial Comments of the United 

States Postal Service, March 25, 2022, at 10). 

4 Id. at 10, 13. The Postal Service states that a 

more comprehensive version of Table 3, which 

includes disaggregated rows for individual 

Competitive Products, is provided under seal. Id. at 

11. 

242 and 50 CFR part 100 for the 2026– 

27 and 2027–28 regulatory years: 

Proposed amendments to 36 CFR 

242.24 and 242.26 and 50 CFR 100.24 

and 100.26 last amended by the final 

rule for the 2024–2026 regulatory period 

for wildlife (89 FR 70358, August 29, 

2024). 

Proposed amendments to 36 CFR 

242.25 and 50 CFR 100.25 last amended 

by the final rule for the 2022–2024 

regulatory period for wildlife (87 FR 

44858; July 26, 2022). 

Crystal Leonetti, 

Director, DOI—Office of Subsistence 

Management. 

Gregory Risdahl, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00434 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P; 4334–13–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2025–6; Order No. 8459] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent Postal Service 

filing requesting the Commission 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 

consider changes to analytical 

principles relating to periodic reports. 

This document informs the public of the 

filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: February 27, 

2025. 

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 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Information Request 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On December 19, 2024, 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 presents an 

updated facility rental analysis used to 

distribute space provision costs to 

individual products in the Annual 

Compliance Report. Petition at 1. 

II. Proposal 

Background. The Postal Service 

explains that the recent facility rental 

analysis, which was completed in 1992, 

was based on Facility Management 

System (FMS) data. Id. Proposal at 1 

(citing Docket No. R94–1, USPS LR–G– 

120, Section IV.). This analysis relied on 

a sampling approach to estimate rental 

values for 18 facility groupings over a 

study period of November 30, 1981, to 

November 30, 1991. Petition, Proposal 

at 2. The Postal Service notes that the 

adjusted results from this analysis were 

last used to distribute space provision 

costs in Docket No. ACR2023, Library 

Reference USPS–FY23–8. Id. at 1. The 

Postal Service explains that there are 

two analyses in the facility portion of 

Library Reference USPS–FY23–8. Id. 

The first consists of the results from 

an updated Facility Space Usage Study 

(FSUS), which was approved by the 

Commission via Proposal Nine in 

August 2020.2 The results from that 

analysis are used to distribute both 

space support and space provision 

costs. Petition, Proposal at 2. 

The second analysis concerns rental 

costs and was listed as a near-term 

study in response to the Commission’s 

request for possible data 

improvements.3 The results from this 

analysis are used to distribute the space 

provision costs only. Petition, Proposal 

at 2. The Postal Service identifies the 

affected cost segments in Table 1. Id. 

The Postal Service identifies three key 

limitations of the 1992 rental value 

analysis. Id. at 4–5. First, the Postal 

Service observes the apparent absence 

of a definitive source for nationwide cap 

rates, which are used to evaluate real 

estate investments that can be 

calculated by dividing the net income 

from a property (i.e., rent) by its current 

market value. Id. at 4. Second, the Postal 

Service notes that the FMS ‘‘building 

cost’’ (construction costs for the facility 

at the time the facility was built or the 

acquisition costs at the time the facility 

was acquired) and ‘‘land cost’’ 

(purchase price for the land at the time 

the property was acquired) fields 

contain cost data that were incurred at 

different points in time. Id. at 4–5. 

Third, the Postal Service explains that 

the definition of ‘‘new’’ buildings 

covered a 10-year period (over which 

fair market value can change 

significantly) and that ‘‘new owned’’ 

data were used to impute rental values 

for ‘‘old owned’’ facilities and were 

applied to all ‘‘old’’ properties even 

though some facilities were decades 

older than other facilities. Id. at 5. 

Proposal. Based on the discussion 

above, the Postal Service states that it 

proposes a simplified and more 

representative analysis in which the 

rental cost distribution by operation and 

function is estimated using Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2019 eFMS rental cost data for all 

active facilities included in Proposal 

Nine. Id. This proposal does not use 

sampling methods. Id. The Postal 

Service describes the proposed data 

sources, organization of the inputs and 

outputs, methodology, and 

modifications to the facility file 

appearing in Library Reference USPS– 

FY23–8. Id. at 6–10. 

Impact. The Postal Service asserts that 

using postal data rather than sampling 

would mean that ‘‘subjective inputs, 

such as capitalization rates and rent 

change factors, are no longer needed.’’ 

Id. at 1. The Postal Service contends 

that its proposal would ‘‘more 

accurately represent[ ] market value 

rental rates for each operation and 

function.’’ Id. at 10. The Postal Service 

states that the ‘‘previous methodology 

may have overstated the market value 

rental rates for plants . . . .’’ Id. The 

Postal Service presents Table 2, which 

summarizes the 2019 rental cost 

distribution by operation and function 

(component) that would be generated by 

adopting the proposal. Id. at 10, 12. The 

Postal Service presents Table 3, which 

summarizes the impact that applying 

this proposal would have had on the 

overall (i.e., across all cost segments) 

volume-variable and product-specific 

costs for each product in FY 2023.4

Under the proposal, the Postal Service 

estimates that attributable costs for 

Market Dominant products and 

Competitive products would decrease 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6928 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

5Motion of Pitney Bowes Inc. for Issuance of 

Information Request, December 23, 2024 (Motion). 

2.12 percent and 1.53 percent, 

respectively. Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–6 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

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

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and the proposal by February 

27, 2025. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, 

Almaroof Agoro is designated as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Information Request 

On December 23, 2024, Pitney Bowes 

filed a motion seeking issuance of an 

information request to the Postal 

Service.5 Because the response to the 

proposed question is likely to aid 

evaluation of the Petition, the Motion is 

granted. The Postal Service shall 

respond to the following question by 

January 7, 2025: Please provide 

modified versions of Library Reference 

USPS–FY23–24: FY 2023 NonOperation Specific Piggyback Factors 

(Public Portion) and Library Reference 

USPS–FY23–25: FY 2023 Mail 

Processing Piggyback Factors (Operation 

Specific) that incorporate the impact of 

the proposed changes to analytical 

principles. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2025–6 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service to Initiate 

a Proceeding to Change Analytical 

Principles and Notice of Filing NonPublic Materials, filed December 19, 

2024. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due February 27, 

2025. 

3. The Motion of Pitney Bowes Inc. 

for Issuance of Information Request, 

filed December 23, 2024, is granted. 

4. The Postal Service shall respond to 

the following question by January 7, 

2025, and provide modified versions of 

Library Reference USPS–FY23–24: FY 

2023 Non-Operation Specific Piggyback 

Factors (Public Portion) and Library 

Reference USPS–FY23–25: FY 2023 

Mail Processing Piggyback Factors 

(Operation Specific) that incorporate the 

impact of the proposed changes to 

analytical principles. 

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

Commission appoints Almaroof Agoro 

to serve as an officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for the 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00153 Filed 1–17–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2024–0627; FRL–12536– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California Air Plan 

Revisions; San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District; 

Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

three permitting rules submitted as a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern the 

District’s New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution under 

section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). 

This action will update the California 

SIP with rules that the District has 

revised to address deficiencies 

identified in a previous limited 

disapproval action and to incorporate 

other revisions related to NSR 

requirements. We are taking comments 

on this proposal and plan to follow with 

a final action. Elsewhere in this Federal 

Register, we are making an interim final 

determination that will defer the 

imposition of CAA sanctions associated 

with our previous limited disapproval 

action. This action also proposes to 

revise regulatory text to clarify that the 

SJVUAPCD is not subject to the federal 

implementation plan related to 

protection of visibility. 

DATES: WComments must be received 

on or before February 20, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2024–0627 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: 

(415) 972–3959, or by email at lo.doris@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the rule deficiencies? 

D. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules. 

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal including the date they 

were adopted by the District and 

submitted to the EPA by the California 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1