31344 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

To see the changes to the ADDRESSES

section of the proposed rule, refer to the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Joseph R. Balash, 

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14483 Filed 7–2–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–0648] 

Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah 

River, Georgia 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a 

public meeting to receive comments on 

a proposal to revise a rule entitled 

‘‘Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah 

River, Georgia’’, which was published in 

the Federal Register on September 10, 

2007 (72 FR 51555). The purpose of this 

public meeting is to determine the need 

to revise the regulated navigation area to 

address changes at the facility. 

DATES: A public meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, July 25, 2018 from 10 a.m. 

to 12 p.m. to provide an opportunity for 

oral comments. Written comments and 

related material may also be submitted 

to Coast Guard personnel specified at 

that meeting. Comments and related 

material must be received by the Coast 

Guard on or before August 15, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the Juliette Gordon Low Federal 

Building, 100 W Oglethorpe Avenue, 

First Floor, Marine Safety Unit 

Savannah Training Room, Savannah, 

GA 31401, telephone 912–652–4353. A 

valid government-issued photo 

identification will be required for 

entrance to the building, and all visitors 

are subject to security screenings. 

This meeting is open to the public. 

Seating is limited, so please RSVP as 

soon as possible, but no later than July 

15, 2018. Please fill out the RSVP form 

using the following link https://

einvitations.afit.edu/inv/anim.cfm?i=

407259&k=0661450B7E5E. 

You may submit written comments 

online by searching docket number 

USCG–2018–0648 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions concerning the 

meeting or the proposed rule, please call 

or email LT Joseph Palmquist, Coast 

Guard; telephone 912–652–4353 ext. 

221, email joseph.b.palmquist@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Purpose 

We are announcing a public meeting 

to receive comments regarding the 

potential revision of the rule titled 

‘‘Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah 

River, Georgia’’ that was published in 

the Federal Register on September 10, 

2007 (72 FR 51555). That rule 

established a regulated navigation area 

around the Southern LNG facility on the 

Savannah River. Since the previous rule 

has been published, there have been 

changes both to the facility layout and 

to the types of vessels that make calls to 

the facility. The purpose of this public 

meeting is to determine the need to 

revise the regulated navigation area to 

address changes at the facility. We have 

received multiple requests and have 

concluded that a public meeting would 

aid in determining whether to propose 

a rulemaking. Therefore, we are 

publishing this notice. 

You may view the current rule, 33 

CFR 165.756, by going to http://

www.ecfr.gov. Once there, click on 

‘‘simple search’’, insert ‘‘33’’ in the title 

number search box and ‘‘165.756’’ in the 

‘‘search for’’ search box and click 

‘‘submit search’’. You may view 

comments submitted thus far by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Once 

there, insert ‘‘USCG–2018–0648’’ in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box and click ‘‘Search’’. 

We encourage you to participate by 

submitting comments either orally at the 

meeting or in writing. If you bring 

written comments to the meeting, you 

may submit them to Coast Guard 

personnel specified at the meeting to 

receive written comments. These 

comments will be submitted to our 

online public docket. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov and will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. 

Comments submitted after the 

meeting must reach the Coast Guard on 

or before August 15, 2018. We 

encourage you to submit comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov. If your 

material cannot be submitted using 

http://www.regulations.gov, contact the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the March 24, 2005, issue of the 

Federal Register (70 FR 15086). 

II. Information on Service for 

Individuals With Disabilities 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact LT Joseph 

Palmquist at the telephone number or 

email address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this notice. 

III. Public Meeting 

The Coast Guard will hold a public 

meeting to receive comments to 

potentially revise the rule titled 

‘‘Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah 

River, Georgia’’ that was published in 

the Federal Register on September 10, 

2007 (72 FR 51555). The meeting will 

take place on July 25, 2018 from 10 a.m. 

to 12 p.m. at Juliette Gordon Low 

Federal Building, 100 W Oglethorpe 

Avenue, First Floor, Marine Safety Unit 

Savannah Training Room, Savannah, 

GA 31401, telephone 912–652–4353. 

Please note that due to building security 

requirements, a valid governmentissued photo identification will be 

required for entrance into the building. 

All visitors are subject to security 

screenings. There is no parking at the 

building; there are various parking 

garages that are within walking distance 

to the building. 

Dated: June 28, 2018. 

N.C. Witt, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of 

the Port Savannah. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14356 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2018–8; Order No. 4689] 

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 Five). 

This document informs the public of the 

filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: August 22, 

2018. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31345 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Five), 

June 26, 2018 (Petition). The Postal Service filed a 

non-public library reference with Proposal Five. 

Library Reference USPS–RM2018–8/NP1, 

Nonpublic Material Relating to Proposal Five, June 

26, 2018; Notice of Filing of USPS–RM2018–8/NP1 

and Application for Nonpublic Treatment, June 26, 

2018. 

2The UPU is a United Nations specialized agency 

comprising 192 member countries, including the 

United States. Member countries negotiate 

international agreements governing the exchange of 

international mail, including applicable rates for 

the delivery of international mail. 

3Petition, Proposal Five at 1. Terminal dues are 

also referred to as default UPU rates, because they 

apply in the absence of an agreement between or 

among postal operators establishing other rates. 

4 Id. at 2. The UPU separates its member countries 

into four country groups (Groups I–IV) based on 

each member country’s Gross National Income and 

the development of its postal system. Decisions of 

the 26th Congress other than those amending the 

Acts (resolutions, decisions, recommendations, 

formal opinions, etc.) (2017), Annex 2, 

Classification of countries and territories for 

terminal dues and Quality of Service Fund (QSF) 

purposes available at http://www.upu.int/uploads/ 

tx_sbdownloader/actsLastCongressActsEn.pdf. 

Then the UPU separates these country groups into 

two systems (Target and Transition). Designated 

postal operators of Target System member countries 

that send large volumes of UPU Letter Post 

mailpieces are required to sort their UPU Letter Post 

mailpieces by shape (formats P and G dispatches 

and format E dispatches). Designated postal 

operators of smaller volume Target System member 

countries and Transition System member countries 

may opt to separate their UPU Letter Post 

mailpieces by shape. 

5 Id. See Docket No. ACR2017, Responses of the 

United States Postal Service to Questions 1–7 of 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, question 6, 

February 2, 2018 (Responses to CHIR No. 10). 

6 Docket No. ACR2017, Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 10 and Notice of Filing Under Seal, 

question 6, January 26, 2018 (CHIR No. 10). 

7Chairman’s Information Request No. 18, 

question 1, February 13, 2018. 

8Responses of the United States Postal Service to 

Questions 1–2 of Chairman’s Information Request 

No. 18, question 1, February 20, 2018 (Response to 

CHIR No. 18). 

9Petition, Proposal Five at 2–3; see Response to 

CHIR No. 18, questions 1.a., 1.c. 

10 Id. See Annual Compliance Determination 

Report, Fiscal Year 2017, March 29, 2018, at 69 (FY 

2017 ACD). 

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 Five 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On June 26, 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 Five. 

II. Proposal Five 

Background. The Postal Service states 

that it considered three related concerns 

when drafting Proposal Five. Petition, 

Proposal Five at 1. First, the Postal 

Service notes that, beginning January 1, 

2018, the Universal Postal Union 

(UPU) 2 implemented ‘‘format’’ or shape 

based terminal dues.3 The UPU 

separates its letter post mailpieces into 

three formats: Small letters (format Petit 

(P)), large letters, also called ‘‘flats,’’ 

(format Grand (G)), and bulky letters 

and small packets (format Encombrant 

(E)). Id. at 1–2. The recent change to the 

UPU terminal dues system applies 

separate terminal dues for the combined 

letter and flat (formats P and G) 

dispatches, format E dispatches, and for 

dispatches that contain mailpieces from 

all three formats (Mixed).4

Second, the Postal Service states that 

Proposal Five addresses issues raised in 

the Postal Service’s response to 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 10, 

question 6 in Docket No. ACR2017.5

CHIR No. 10, question 6 requested the 

Postal Service to ‘‘identify and discuss 

the factors that increased processing, 

delivery, and other costs for Inbound 

Letter Post in [Fiscal Year (FY)] 2017.’’ 6

In its response to CHIR No. 10, question 

6, the Postal Service discussed shapebased cost trends for a market dominant 

negotiated service agreement, Inbound 

Market Dominant PRIME Tracked 

Service Agreement, to explain the 

increased Inbound Letter Post cost. 

Responses to CHIR No. 10, question 6. 

CHIR No. 18 asked why the Postal 

Service did not incorporate the shapebased information into the Domestic 

Processing Model and the International 

Cost and Revenue Analysis (ICRA) 

report.7 In its response, the Postal 

Service explained that it could not 

apply the shape-based ratios developed 

for the financial workpapers for 

inbound international negotiated service 

agreements to the Domestic Processing 

Model or the ICRA report without 

additional data and development.8 The 

Postal Service indicated that it was 

investigating a shape-based approach to 

the Domestic Processing Model and 

planned to complete its investigation 

and file a proposal to incorporate a 

shape-based approach into the Domestic 

Processing Model and the ICRA report 

in FY 2018.9

Third, the Postal Service contends 

that Proposal Five responds to a 

directive in the FY 2017 Annual 

Compliance Determination report 

(ACD). Petition, Proposal Five at 3. In 

the FY 2017 ACD, the Commission 

directed the Postal Service to file an 

update on its investigation of using 

shape-based data to develop Inbound 

Letter Post costs within 90 days of the 

FY 2017 ACD, if the Postal Service had 

not yet filed a ‘‘rulemaking proposal to 

implement shape-based costing for 

Inbound Letter Post in the Domestic 

Processing Model and the ICRA.’’ 10

Proposal. The Postal Service states 

that Proposal Five will replace the 

current methodology with the 

development of separate inbound costs 

for letter and flats (formats P and G) and 

for bulky letters and small packets 

(format E). Petition, Proposal Five at 3. 

The Postal Service states that the ICRA 

report format will not change, but ‘‘the 

aggregated costs shown on the 

individual ICRA lines would be the sum 

of the separately-developed letter/flatshape and packet-shaped costs.’’ Id. 

Rationale and impact. The Postal 

Service states that the current 

methodology does not align with what 

is now the UPU terminal dues structure. 

Id. Additionally, the Postal Service 

explains that the proposed methodology 

will provide better data from which the 

Commission may analyze the new UPU 

terminal dues rate structure and analyze 

the various components of the Inbound 

Letter Post product. Id. at 4. The Postal 

Service identifies the likely effects of 

Proposal Five on the development of the 

ICRA report in non-public Excel file 

‘‘Attachment1.xls.’’ The Postal Service 

provides cell-by-cell differences 

between the proposed methodology and 

the data provided in the ICRA as part of 

the Postal Service’s annual compliance 

report for FY 2017. Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–8 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 Five no later than 

August 22, 2018. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

505, Katalin K. Clendenin is designated 

as an officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31346 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Four), 

June 25, 2018 (Petition). 

2One type of fee that may be incurred when using 

a debit card is an interchange fee, which is the 

largest categorical contributor to total debit card 

processing fees for a transaction. Id. at 5. A 

merchant pays an interchange fee to the debit card 

issuer whenever a customer makes a purchase using 

a debit card. See 12 CFR 235.2(j) (defining 

‘‘interchange transaction fee’’ as ‘‘any fee 

established, charged, or received by a payment card 

network and paid by a merchant or an acquirer for 

the purpose of compensating an issuer for its 

involvement in an electronic debit transaction.’’). 

The debit card fees referred to in the Petition and 

this Order are interchange fees. 

3Petition, Proposal Four at 1; see Docket No. 

RM2015–4, Order Approving Analytical Principle 

Used in Periodic Reporting (Proposal Eleven), 

February 9, 2015 (Order No. 2350). 

4 Id.; see Docket No. ACR2017, Library Reference 

USPS–FY17–32, December 29, 2017. 

5 Id. at 2–3; see Docket No. ACR2017, 

Supplemental Response of the United States Postal 

Service to Question 1.b of Chairman’s Information 

Request No. 2, February 23, 2018 (Response to CHIR 

No. 2, Question 1.b). 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–8 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 Five), filed June 26, 

2018. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

August 22, 2018. 

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

Commission appoints Katalin K. 

Clendenin 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. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14367 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2018–7; Order No. 4685] 

Periodic Reporting 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent filing requesting that the 

Commission initiate an informal 

rulemaking proceeding to consider 

changes to an analytical method for use 

in periodic reporting (Proposal Four). 

This document informs the public of the 

filing, invites public comment, and 

takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: July 23, 

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 Four 

III. Notice and Comment 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On June 25, 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 principles changes 

filed in this docket as Proposal Four. 

II. Proposal Four 

Background. Proposal Four would 

change the costing methodology for 

assigning expenses related to debit card 

transactions in the component named 

Retail Credit Card Fees (Component No. 

126) in Cost Segment 13. Petition, 

Proposal Four at 1. Debit card 

transactions, which are purchases made 

using debit cards, incur fees that 

merchants pay to the debit card issuer.2

For example, when a customer 

purchases a product or service from the 

Postal Service using a debit card, the 

Postal Service pays the debit card issuer 

a fee for each transaction. 

In Docket No. RM2015–4, the 

Commission approved the current 

methodology for assigning expenses 

related to credit and debit card 

transactions.3 The current methodology 

treats these expenses as fully volume 

variable and assigns them to products in 

the same proportions as the Postal 

Service revenue realized from aggregate 

credit and debit card transactions. 

Petition, Proposal Four at 1. When 

preparing the FY 2017 Annual 

Compliance Report (ACR), the Postal 

Service explains that it recognized two 

flaws in the current methodology. Id. 

First, the current methodology uses the 

total of both credit and debit card fees 

when calculating distribution factors. 

Id. This assumes that transactions made 

with debit and credit cards are similar, 

which is not true for every product. Id. 

For example, Priority Mail generates 

more revenue from credit card 

purchases than debit cards. Id. 

Conversely, Money Orders cannot be 

purchased using credit cards. Id. 

The Postal Service asserts that when 

calculating a distribution key, the type 

of card used (debit or credit) becomes 

more important because total credit card 

fees are almost four times greater than 

total debit card fees. Id. Because of this 

incorrect assumption, the current 

methodology misallocates expenses 

related to debit and credit card fees, 

especially for products that are more 

heavily purchased by one card type. Id. 

The second flaw in the current 

methodology identified by the Postal 

Service is that the distribution factors 

do not fully align with actual expenses 

incurred from the usage of debit and 

credit cards. Id. at 2. For example, for 

Money Order transactions, the Postal 

Service charges the customer the face 

value of the Money Order plus a Special 

Services fee. Id. When calculating the 

Money Order share of total ‘‘revenue’’ 

for distribution purposes, the current 

methodology only considers the Special 

Services fee the Postal Service charges 

the customer. Id. The Postal Service 

asserts that this methodology is 

erroneous because the amount the 

Postal Service pays to the debit card 

provider is based on the entire 

transaction amount, including the face 

value of the money order, rather than 

just the Special Services fee charged. Id. 

To address these two flaws in the 

current methodology, the Postal Service 

made two corrections to Library 

Reference USPS–FY17–32, which was 

filed with the FY 2017 ACR.4 First, the 

Postal Service separated credit and debit 

card fees to develop different sets of 

distribution factors for these fees. 

Petition, Proposal Four at 2. Second, the 

set of distribution factors for debit cards 

used the aggregate face value of Money 

Orders purchased with debit cards in 

conjunction with the revenue from all 

other products. Id. 

In a supplemental Chairman’s 

Information Request (CHIR) response, 

the Postal Service proposed a model 

attempting to account for the recognized 

major components of debit card fees.5 In 

the FY 2017 Annual Compliance 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1