Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22017

The proposed amendment provides

that the rating board has sole authority

to determine the competency of

beneficiaries, but that if the VSO

develops new information bearing on

the issue of the beneficiary’s

competency, the rating board will

consider that evidence together with all

other evidence of record to determine

whether the prior determination of

incompetency should remain in effect.

Paragraph (b)(2) provides that the

Adjudication Officer will authorize

disbursement to an incompetent

beneficiary as directed by the VSO (e.g.,

supervised direct payment, payment to

a fiduciary, or payment to the

beneficiary’s spouse). Additional

nonsubstantive changes would be made

in the wording and format of § 3.353(b)

for the sake of clarity.

The Secretary hereby certifies that

these regulatory amendments would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

The amendments would not directly

affect any small entities. Only VA

beneficiaries would be directly affected.

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

these amendments are exempt from the

initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis requirements of section 603

and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance program numbers are 64.104,

64.105, 64.109 and 64.110.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Health care,

Individuals with disabilities, Pensions,

Veterans.

Approved: April 11, 1995.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 38 CFR Part 3 is amended to

read as follows:

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. Section 3.353 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 3.353 Determinations of incompetency

and competency.

* * * * *

(b) Authority. (1) Rating agencies have

sole authority to make official

determinations of competency and

incompetency for the purpose of

existing laws, Department of Veterans

Affairs regulations and Department of

Veterans Affairs instructions. Such

determinations are final and binding on

field stations for purposes of: insurance

(38 U.S.C. 1922), the discontinuance

and payment of amounts withheld

because of an estate in excess of $1,500

(§ 3.557(b)), and, subject to § 13.56 of

this chapter, disbursement of benefits.

(2) Where the beneficiary is rated

incompetent, the Adjudication Officer

will inform the Veterans Services

Officer of jurisdiction of that fact. The

Veterans Services Officer will develop

information as to the beneficiary’s

social, economic and industrial

adjustment and appoint (or recommend

appointment of) a fiduciary as provided

in § 13.55 of this chapter, select a

method of disbursing payment as

provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in

the case of a married beneficiary,

appoint the beneficiary’s spouse to

receive payments as provided in § 13.57

of this chapter. The Adjudication

Officer will authorize disbursement of

the benefit in the manner selected by

the Veterans Services Officer.

(3) If in the course of fulfilling the

responsibilities assigned in paragraph

(b)(2) the Veterans Services Officer

develops evidence indicating that the

beneficiary may be capable of

administering the funds payable

without limitation, he or she will refer

that evidence to the rating agency with

a statement as to his or her findings. The

rating agency will consider this

evidence, together with all other

evidence of record, to determine

whether its prior determination of

incompetency should remain in effect.

Reexamination may be requested as

provided in § 3.327(a) if necessary to

properly evaluate the beneficiary’s

mental capacity to contract or manage

his or her own affairs.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10936 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3001

[Docket No. RM95–4]

Rules of Practice and Procedure

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is soliciting

comments on a Postal Service petition,

including proposed rules for initiation

of a rulemaking on procedural changes

intended to foster expedition, flexibility

and innovation in seven aspects of

ratemaking and classification. Proposed

rules accompanied the petition. The

changes are based in part on

recommendations in a joint Postal

Service/Postal Rate Commission task

force report on improvements in the

ratemaking process. The proposed rules

generally provide for a lesser amount of

initial supporting documentation in

Postal Service requests for certain rate

and classification changes and a

specific, limited period for public

comments and Commission review of

those requests.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and

correspondence should be sent to

Margaret Crenshaw, Secretary of the

Commission, 1333 H Street NW, Suite

300, Washington, DC 20068–0001

(telephone: 202/789–6840).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, Legal Advisor,

Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street

NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268–

0001 (telephone: 202/789–6820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

13, 1995, the Postal Service filed with

the Commission a petition for initiation

of a rulemaking involving changes in, or

additions to, procedural mechanisms for

handling certain rate and classification

matters. In support thereof, the petition

asserts a keen interest on the part of

postal management and the Governors

in improving approaches to general rate

changes. The petition also

acknowledges the influence of certain

recommendations of the Joint Task

Force on Postal Ratemaking (June 1,

1992). The petition, the Joint Task

Force’s report, and other reports referred

to in the Service’s petition are on file in

the Commission’s Docket Room. A

summary of the proposed changes, a

number of additional related topics for

consideration. The text of the rule

changes proposed by the Postal Service

may be obtained from the Secretary of

the Commission upon request.

‘‘Limited Scope’’ Rate Cases

Citing the Joint Task Force’s

acknowledgement that certain

circumstances might call for limited

adjustments to rates outside the context

of an omnibus rate proceeding, the

Postal Service proposes rules that would

allow expedited, limited rate changes

between rate cases. Petition at 7

(internal citation omitted). The Service

says the rules are intended to permit

extensive reliance on the most recent
22018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

general rate case, and to keep the

inquiry narrowly focused on areas

related to the limited nature of the

change and the effects on revenues and

costs. The rules would require the

Commission to issue a recommended

decision on requests that are not

challenged within 60 days. If the request

is challenged, a 90-day period for

issuance of a Commission decision

would apply. Ibid.

Rate Bands

The Service indicates that its proposal

for rate bands for competitive services

adopts the Joint Task Force’s framework

of establishing a range within a general

rate proceeding, but differs in several

other respects. Id. at 8. For example,

instead of a written notice procedure,

the proposed rules create a mechanism

in general rate cases for establishing a

band of rates for competitive services

based on a range of markups over

attributable costs, and an aggregate

institutional cost contribution for each

product or service classified as

competitive. The band and contribution

thereby established would serve as the

criteria for recommending rates in each

general rate case and for changing rates

within the bands between cases.

Provisions in the Domestic Mail

Classification Schedule (DMCS) would

identify certain categories of mail as

eligible to benefit from rate band

flexibility. Between general rate cases,

the Service would submit to the

Commission a request for a

recommended decision on whether to

adjust prices within the pre-established

bands. The Commission would be

required to issue a decision within 30

days if the request is not challenged,

and within 60 days if challenged. The

Service says it believes that a

classification proceeding under existing

rules would be adequate to create the

necessary DMCS provision to

implement the rate band mechanism.

Expedited Minor Classification Cases

The Service also proposes rules that

would allow expedited treatment for

certain narrowly focused, limited

classification changes, such as those

affecting mailing requirements,

eligibility standards, and categories of

service with low aggregate costs and

revenues. Initial filing requirements

would be less demanding than those

applicable to more complex

classification cases, and findings from

the last omnibus rate case would not be

relitigated. The Commission would be

required to issue a recommended

decision within 60 days if the Service’s

request is not challenged, and within 90

days if it is challenged.

Market Tests

The Postal Service asserts that its

rules for market tests attempt to track

elements of a procedure outlined in the

Joint Task Force Report. Id. at 11. The

proposed rules would allow

consideration of proposals to obtain

data from actual market testing of mail

classification or rate changes. There

would be limits on the scope, scale and

duration of the test. Initially, only

information available to support the

experimental proposal and a description

of the test and the plan for collecting the

necessary additional data would need to

be filed. Information obtained from the

test could be considered in a later

portion of the proceeding to determine

whether the change should be made

permanent. The scope of inquiry in the

initial phase would be limited to issues

of general legality, the design and

necessity of the test, and the nature of

any adverse effect on competitors or

discrimination among mailers. The

Commission would either recommend

or not recommend the service as

proposed, without modification.

However, if the Commission made

suggestions for modifications, the

Service could incorporate those

suggestions in a new request. The

petition notes that the rules would

embody a presumption in favor of

innovation.

Provisional Services

The Service also proposes a

mechanism for implementing the Joint

Task Force’s concept of new services

with provisional status. The proposed

rules would allow fast-track

consideration of proposals to introduce

a new service. The type of service

eligible for this treatment, in line with

the Joint Task Force’s recommendation,

would be one which supplements

existing rates and classifications

without changing any of them. The

service would be approved initially for

only a limited period, and subsequent

review would be expected. This

provisional status would justify an

expedited, more limited degree of

review. Although the service could

affect future overall revenue

requirements, it would not be tied to the

rates for any existing class or category.

The scope of inquiry would be limited

to whether the proposal would have a

material adverse effect on revenue or

costs, or pose unnecessary or

unreasonable harm for competitors.

Commission approval or disapproval

would be required within 90 days. As

with the market test rules, the Postal

Service could incorporate Commission

modifications in a new request. In the

absence of a showing of adverse effect

or unreasonable harm to competitors,

the rules contemplate that the

Commission would recommend the

provisional service.

Multi-Year Test Periods for New

Services

The Service proposes rules

authorizing the use of multi-year test

periods for potential new services that

are not expected to generate sufficient

volumes and revenues to cover costs in

their first year or two of existence, but

which are expected to generate an

appropriate contribution to institutional

costs when they mature. Currently, the

Commission recommends rates based on

a comparison of costs and revenues over

a one-year period soon after the

implementation of a new service. The

Service claims that the proposed rules

would encourage innovation by

examining costs and revenues for a new

service over a multi-year period.

Negotiated Service Agreements

The petition notes that the proposed

rules contemplate authorization for the

Service to negotiate agreements with

mailers. The Service would agree to

provide mail services not currently

included within the DMCS, at rates

attractive to the mailer and beneficial to

the Postal Service. The petition

indicates that implementation of this

proposal would involve two steps. One

is introducing DMCS language enabling

the Service to provide service in the

context of a Negotiated Service

Agreement (NSA). The other is

establishing procedural rules to govern

the actions undertaken by the

Commission to allow such agreements

to be placed into effect. Under the

proposed DMCS provisions, only

mailers who meet specified standards

and who are willing to submit mailings

within closely defined parameters

would be eligible to enter NSAs. The

negotiated rate must contribute a

reasonable amount towards the recovery

of institutional costs, with a minimum

markup level identified as

presumptively reasonable. Similarly

situated mailers would be able to apply

to receive the same service at the same

rate. In addition to providing the text of

the NSA, the Service would be required

to demonstrate that the NSA would be

beneficial to the Postal Service. The

Commission would either approve or

reject the tentative NSA as submitted.

Furthermore, when the effective markup

equals or exceeds the percentage

amount previously specified as

reasonable in the DMCS, the

Commission could avoid further debate

as to whether that markup is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22019

appropriate. The Commission would be

required to issue a recommendation

within 60 days.

Request for Comments

The Commission invites interested

parties to submit their views on the

subject matters addressed in the

Service’s petition, and on its substantive

and procedural proposals. In particular,

the Commission invites comments on

the following topics.

1. The Service’s petition

acknowledges the influence of the Joint

Task Force’s recommendations on the

development of its proposals. Does that

report offer other recommendations not

included in the Service’s petition that

warrant consideration?

2. The petition states, without further

elaboration, that existing Commission

and judicial precedent create

impediments to accommodating many

promising ideas for carrying out the

Joint Task Force’s recommendations. Id.

at 4. The Postal Service is requested to

specify to what judicial precedents the

petition refers, and how the proposed

rules accommodate these precedents.

3. Any commenter which considers

one or more of these proposals to violate

current law as judicially interpreted is

requested to explain why that proposal

might be considered unlawful.

Comments addressing whether the

proposals are consistent with the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

556, 557, are requested to specify

adequate time periods for various

procedural steps.

4. The petition indicates that the

proposed rules for market tests and

provisional services include certain

presumptions that would apply in

evaluating Postal Service proposals. Id.

at 11 and 13. Is inclusion of these

presumptions an appropriate approach

to Commission review of Service

requests? Should these presumptions be

specified in the rules?

5. The petition indicates that the

Service and Governors believe that

improvements in the ratemaking process

may require direct legislative change or

an explicit clarification that flexibilities

already exist in the current law.

Moreover, the petition states that certain

fundamental changes in the law seem

advisable in any event, particularly in

basic structural matters and in

substantive areas that have been the

most controversial in the past. Petition

at 3–4. The Postal Service is requested

to explain what legislative changes it

believes would be needed to foster

further expedition and flexibility if the

Commission were to adopt the proposed

rules.

6. The petition acknowledges the

Commission’s workload, but

nonetheless urges that a rulemaking

docket be opened to consider the

proposed changes. Petition at 5–6.

Should the Commission consider all

seven of these proposed changes at this

time, or should part or all of the

rulemaking be postponed? If some, but

not all, of the proposals are considered

at this time, which ones should be

reviewed first, and which should be

deferred? Why?

Issued by the Commission on April 24,

1995.

Cyril J. Pittack,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10944 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Parts 201–23 and 201–24

Amendment of FIRMR Provisions

Relating to GSA’s Role in Screening

Excess and Exchange/Sale Federal

Information Processing (FIP)

Equipment

AGENCY: Information Technology

Service, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the Federal Information

Resources Management Regulation

(FIRMR) to allow Federal agencies to

screen and transfer excess and

exchange/sale FIP equipment.

DATES: Comments are due: July 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

GSA/KAR, 18th and F Streets NW.,

Room 3224, Washington, DC 20405,

Attn: R. Stewart Randall, or delivered to

that address between 8 a.m. and 4:30

p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

R. Stewart Randall, GSA, Office of

Information Technology (IT) Policy and

Leadership, Regulations Analysis

Division (KAR), 18th and F Streets NW.,

Room 3224, Washington, DC 20405,

telephone FTS/Commercial (202) 501–

4469 (v) or (202) 501–4469 (tdd).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) Part

201–23 is being amended to delegate

authority and responsibility to agencies

regarding the screening and transfer of

excess FIP equipment. Currently, the

FIRMR requires Federal agencies to

request GSA to interagency screen and

transfer excess FIP equipment that is not

outdated and has an original acquisition

cost (OAC) per component of $1 million

or more. It is not necessary for GSA to

continue to operate this program on a

centralized basis. Accordingly, the

requirement for GSA to be directly

involved in interagency screening and

transfer of excess FIP equipment will be

removed from the FIRMR.

(2) Explanation of the changes being

made in this issuance are shown below:

(a) Section 201–23.000 ‘‘Scope of

part’’ is revised by removing paragraphs

(b), (c), and (d) to more succinctly

describe the entire contents of this

revised part.

(b) Section 201–23.001 paragraph

(a)(2) is revised and paragraph (a)(4) is

deleted to remove the references to the

GSA Excess FIP Equipment Program.

Agencies will no longer be required to

submit to GSA information about their

excess FIP equipment with the OAC

above $1 million for GSA to do

interagency screening.

(c) Section 201–23.001 paragraph (b)

is deleted. Section 201–23.001

paragraph (c) is redesignated as

paragraph (b).

(d) Section 201–23.002 paragraph (c)

the sentence ‘‘Agencies may interagency

screen and transfer excess FIP

equipment without GSA approval’’ is

added at the end of the paragraph.

(e) Paragraph (b) of section 201–

23.003 is redesignated as (c) and a new

paragraph (b) is added. In the newly

designated section 201–23.003

paragraph (c)(1), the work ‘‘internal’’

will be removed because it is redundant

in this context. The words ‘‘within the

agency’’ are added at the end of the

paragraph to distinguish these

procedures for interagency screening

from those GSA will require.

(f) Section 201–23.003(c) is

redesignated as paragraph (d) and is

completely revised to remove the

mandatory reporting requirement for

agencies to submit equipment with an

OAC of $1 million or more to GSA for

interagency screening purposes. The

section will now show that agencies

must offer to other Federal agencies

excess FIP equipment with an OAC of

$1 million or more in accordance with

guidelines in FIRMR Bulletin C–2.

(g) Section 201–23.003(d) is

redesignated as paragraph (e) and is

revised to remove words indicating

GSA’s former role in interagency

screening of agencies’ excess FIP

equipment.

(h) Paragraph (h) is added to § 201–

23.003 to show that an agency may

request GSA to review another agency’s

decision to transfer excess FIP

equipment.

(i) Section 201–24.202 referencing the

GSA Excess FIP Program as a mandatory

for consideration program will be

removed because changes to part 201–