Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 136 / Monday, July 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 42667 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), 

July 7, 2022 (Petition). The Petition was 

accompanied by a study supporting its proposal. 

See Michael D. Bradley, Calculating Variabilities for 

Postmaster Costs, July 7, 2022. The Postal Service 

also filed a notice of filing of public and non-public 

materials relating to Proposal Two. Notice of Filing 

Continued 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L[60a] of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. A 

preliminary 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. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

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. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0483 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

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 is proposing 

to amend 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; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.1189 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1189 Security Zone; San Francisco 

Bay, San Francisco, CA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

security zone: all navigable waters of the 

San Francisco Bay on the east side of 

Yerba Buena Island from a point along 

the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena 

Island at 37°48′27′′ N, 122°21′44′′ W; 

east to 37°48′27′′ N, 122°21′35′′ W; north 

to 37°48′49′′ N, 122°21′35′′ W, a point on 

the northeastern side of Yerba Buena 

Island. These coordinates are based on 

North American Datum (NAD) 83. 

(b) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general security zone 

regulations in subpart D of this part, 

entry into the area of the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section is prohibited unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San 

Francisco. 

(2) The security zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP. 

(3) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP by VHF Marine Radio 

channel 16 or through the 24-hour 

Command Center at telephone (415) 

399–3547. Those in the security zone 

must comply with all lawful orders or 

directions given to them by the COTP. 

(c) Enforcement. The Captain of the 

Port will enforce the security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section and may be assisted in the patrol 

and enforcement of the security zone by 

any Federal, State, county, municipal, 

or private agency. 

Dated: July 12, 2022. 

Taylor Q. Lam, 

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

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15270 Filed 7–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2022–8; Order No. 6224] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent filing requesting 

the Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports (Proposal Two). This document 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 26, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at https://

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 Two 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On July 7, 2022, 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


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
42668 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 136 / Monday, July 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

of USPS–RM2022–8–1 and USPS–RM2022–8–NP1 

and Application for Nonpublic Treatment, July 7, 

2022. 

2See Petition at 1 (citing Docket No. RM2020–2, 

Order on Analytical Principles Used in Periodic 

Reporting (Proposal Ten), July 8, 2021 (Order No. 

5932)). 

3See id. at 3 (citing Docket No. RM2020–2, 

Library Reference PRC–LR–RM2020–2/5, July 8, 

2021, at 1 (File A5)). 

The Petition identifies the proposed 

analytical changes filed in this docket as 

Proposal Two. 

II. Proposal Two 

Background. In Docket No. RM2020– 

2 (Proposal Ten), the Postal Service 

proposed revisions aimed at updating 

and improving the attribution of 

Postmaster costs.2 The Commission 

raised four main issues with Proposal 

Ten and ultimately rejected it because 

the Postal Service did not show that its 

proposed revisions to Postmaster cost 

variability and attribution would result 

in a significant improvement in the 

attribution of costs nor were 

necessitated by the public interest. See 

Order No. 5932 at 9–46. The 

Commission offered two alternative 

methods that would remedy the 

deficiencies in Proposal Ten, and 

encouraged the Postal Service to 

resubmit an updated Postmaster 

variability analysis. See id. at 47. 

Following the Commission’s guidance 

in Order No. 5932, the Postal Service 

now submits Proposal Two to address 

and improve the Postmaster variability 

analysis. See Petition at 2. 

Proposal. The first of the two 

variability calculation methods offered 

by the Commission in Order No. 5932 

was termed the ‘‘Large Sample Version 

of Proposal Ten Variability’’ (LSVPTV) 

method.3 The LSVPTV method 

addresses the Postmaster variability 

discontinuity issue through analyzing 

the variability calculation under the 

assumption that there is an infinite 

number of Post Offices in the two grades 

for which the variability is calculated. 

See id. at 3. However, the Postal Service 

states that under this method, the Work 

Service Credit (WSC) probability 

distribution is unknown and must be 

estimated in an additional analysis 

before the variability can be calculated. 

See id. 

The second variability calculation 

method offered by the Commission in 

Order No. 5932 was termed the 

‘‘Minimization of Error Distance 

Between Predicted and Actual Cost’’ 

(MEDBPAC) method, which was also 

referred to as a ‘‘geometrical’’ approach. 

See id. at 3–4 (citing File A5 at 12). To 

calculate a variability for a given 

Executive Administrative Schedule 

(EAS) grade pair, the algorithm modifies 

the total Postmaster cost equation by 

replacing the counts of the numbers of 

offices in the higher and lower EAS 

grades with the sums of the probabilities 

of an office being in either the higher or 

lower EAS grade, as determined by the 

logit model. See id. at 4. 

The Postal Service considered and 

evaluated the two methods and 

determined that the MEDBPAC method 

provides a stronger foundation than the 

LSVPTV method for calculating 

Postmaster attributable costs. See id. 

The Postal Service asserts that the 

LSVPTV method has several 

disadvantages. First, it involves 

calculating the limit of the variability 

function, not calculating the variability 

directly from the variability function 

itself. See id. Second, it requires 

assuming that there is an infinite 

number of Post Offices, which may 

present issues for pairs of EAS grades 

with relatively few Post Offices. See id. 

at 4–5. Third, it requires non-parametric 

estimation of the continuous probability 

distribution of the WSCs for each pair 

of Post Offices, which imparts 

arbitrariness to the estimation and adds 

another step of complexity to the 

calculation. See id. at 5. Fourth, the 

calculated LSVPTV variability turns out 

to be the variability of cost with respect 

to the threshold WSC level, not WSCs 

directly, which may cause issues for the 

calculation of incremental costs. See id. 

The Postal Service contends that in 

comparison, the MEDBPAC method has 

several advantages. First, it is much 

closer in form to established methods of 

variability calculation. See id. Second, it 

is transparent and does not require 

another layer of assumptions and 

estimations. See id. Third, it makes use 

of the actual distribution of WSCs across 

Post Offices, ensuring that the 

variabilities reflect the underlying cost 

surface. See id. Fourth, it is consistent 

with the economic theory underlying 

attributable cost calculation. See id. 

Therefore, the Postal Service proposes 

to use the MEDBPAC method to 

calculate the Postmaster variability. 

The Postal Service also determined to 

extract Form 150 WSC data from 2022 

to update the logit models used in 

Docket No. RM2022–2, as those logit 

models were estimated from older Form 

150 WSC data from 2019. See id. The 

Postal Service states that doing so 

updates the variability analysis to the 

most recent data available and 

demonstrates the stability of the logit 

models. See id. 

As the 2022 Postmaster variabilities 

depend not only on the logit models 

estimated on the 2022 WSC data, but 

also on the EAS salary schedule for 

2022, the Postal Service summarized the 

changes in EAS salary schedule for 2022 

in comparison with the EAS salary 

schedule for 2019. See id. at 7–8. 

Based on the logit models estimated 

on the 2022 WSC data and the 2022 EAS 

salary schedule, the Postal Service 

calculated the 2022 Postmaster 

variabilities. See id. at 8, Table 1. The 

Postal Service also included the 2019 

Postmaster variabilities for comparison 

and found that three of the estimated 

variabilities were very stable, one 

showed modest change, and two 

showed substantial change due to EAS 

salary schedule change from 2019 to 

2022. See id. at 8–9. 

Impact. In the Postmaster cost model 

used currently, a single variability is 

applied against the costs for EAS grades 

18 through 22, and grades 24 and above 

receive a zero variability by assumption. 

See id. at 10. In contrast, the variability 

calculation using the MEDBPAC method 

as proposed by the Postal Service 

calculates variability for each of the EAS 

grades below EAS–26, including EAS– 

24. See id. The Postal Service states that 

doing so results in an overall variability 

of 3.03 percent, calculated by first 

calculating the total volume variable 

costs implied by the individual EAS 

grade variabilities and then dividing 

that sum by total accrued costs. See id. 

The Postal Service states that under 

the proposed approach the new overall 

variability is lower than the existing 

variability for three reasons. First, the 

Postal Service observes that current 

variability calculation method is 

overstated due to a computational error. 

See id. 

Second, the Postal Service notes that 

the Post Office Structure Plan 

(POStPlan) eliminated the lower EAS 

grades. See id. In lower EAS grades, 

Postmaster could move relatively 

rapidly through WSCs to a higher salary. 

See id. In higher EAS grades, Postmaster 

would need much larger increases in 

WSCs in order to move to a higher 

salary. See id. Therefore, the Postal 

Service contends that eliminating the 

lower EAS grades results in the less 

likelihood of Postmaster cost increase 

for a given percentage increase in 

volume, which in turn results in the 

lower overall variability. See id. 

Third, the Postal Service states that 

the current variability calculation 

method measures only the potential 

increase in cost from an increase in 

WSCs, not the actual increase captured 

by the distribution of offices, by WSCs, 

and within each grade. See id. at 10–11. 

Thus, the Postal Service notes that the 

current methodology tends to overstate 

the variability because it assumes that 

all offices would change grades when 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 136 / Monday, July 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules 42669 

4See id. at 12, Table 2. The impact of the new 

variabilities on Competitive products are presented 

in the non-public materials submitted by the Postal 

Service, Excel file ‘‘Non Public Impact.xlsx’’ in 

Library Reference USPS–RM2022–8/NP1. 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Three), 

July 8, 2022 (Petition). The Postal Service also filed 

a notice of filing of non-public material relating to 

Proposal Three. Notice of Filing of USPS–RM2022– 

9–NP1 and Application for Nonpublic Treatment, 

July 8, 2022. 

2See Library Reference USPS–RM2022–9/NP1, 

July 8, 2022. 

WSC changes. See id. at 11. In contrast, 

the Postal Service observes that its 

proposed MEDBPAC method averages 

the variabilities calculated at each Post 

Office used to estimate the logit models, 

and reflects the actual changes in cost 

associated with a given change in WSCs. 

See id. The Postal Service states that 

since most Post Offices have WSC levels 

that are unlikely to change EAS grades 

in response to a WSC change, the actual 

overall variability should be lower. See 

id. 

The Postal Service calculated the 

impact of new Postmaster variabilities 

on costs of domestic Market Dominant 

products in Table 2.4 The Postal Service 

asserts that lower new variabilities do 

not have a large impact on those costs, 

as unit Postmaster costs are low to begin 

with. See id. at 11. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2022–8 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 Proposal Two no later than 

August 26, 2022. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

505, Madison Lichtenstein 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. RM2022–8 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 Two), filed July 7, 

2022. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

August 26, 2022. 

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

Commission appoints Madison 

Lichtenstein 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. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15229 Filed 7–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2022–9; Order No. 6223] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

acknowledging a recent filing requesting 

the Commission initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding to consider changes to 

analytical principles relating to periodic 

reports (Proposal Three). This document 

informs the public of the filing, invites 

public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 12, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at https://

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 July 8, 2022, 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. Proposal Three relates to 

the Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (RPW) 

reporting methodology for measuring 

the country-level totals of contract 

mailpieces in outbound international 

product categories bearing permitimprint indicia. See Petition; id. 

Proposal Three at 1. The international 

outbound products at issue include 

Priority Mail International (PMI), FirstClass Package International Service 

(FCPIS), Priority Mail Express 

International (PMEI), First-Class Mail 

International (FCMI), International 

Priority Airmail (IPA), International 

Surface Airlift (ISAL), and Commercial 

ePackets (CEPK). Proposal Three at 1. 

Currently, the Postal Service uses 

statistical sampling estimates from the 

System for International Revenue and 

Volume, Outbound, and International 

Origin Destination Information System 

(SIRVO–IODIS), along with estimates 

from Global Business System Dispatch 

(GBS Dispatch), to report the countrylevel totals. See id. The Postal Service 

also filed an assessment of the impact of 

the proposal on particular products in a 

non-public attachment accompanying 

this proposal.2

Proposal. The Postal Service’s 

proposal seeks to replace the SIRVO– 

IODIS sampling estimates and the GBS 

Dispatch estimates used in the existing 

RPW reporting methodology with 

granular census data. See id. at 5. The 

Postal Service would use two auxiliary 

data sources for permit-imprint contract 

pieces: manifest information for 

PostalOne! customers using the 

Electronic Verification System (eVS) 

and, for other PostalOne! customers, 

barcodes of mailer-prepared receptacles 

in the GBS Dispatch system. See id. For 

PC Postage contract pieces, the Postal 

Service would determine destinationcountry information from a 

disaggregated National Meter Account 

Tracking System (NMATS) report 

containing activity by individual 

contract and product. See id. 

Rationale and impact. The Postal 

Service states that, under the current 

methodology, certain country-level 

detail cannot be obtained directly and 

that approximations, which may contain 

sampling error or be imprecise, are used 

instead. See id. at 4. According to the 

Postal Service, such error and 

imprecision affect analyses of negotiated 

service agreements (NSAs), which 

analyses rely on country-level detail. 

See id. The Postal Service asserts that its 

proposed methodology could ‘‘be used 

for more precise analyses of individual 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS