Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69781 

1Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(PAEA), Pub. L. 10–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006). 

2 Docket No. RM2007–1, Order Establishing 

Ratemaking Regulations for Market Dominant and 

Competitive Products, October 29, 2007 (Order No. 

43). 

3 Docket No. RM2007–1, Order Proposing 

Regulations to Establish a System of Ratemaking, 

August 15, 2007, at 2 (Order No. 26). 

4The Commission also observed there were 

implicit exclusions as well, such as updates that 

might be governed by other rules such as changes 

to rates and fees. Id. 

(ii) Reimburse travel to and from 

official meetings of the overseas 

scouting committee upon approval from 

the appropriate combatant commander. 

(5) The total amount of NAF support 

for the scouting program must not 

exceed 70 percent of the total cost of the 

scouting program. 

Dated: November 18, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27665 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket No. RM2015–6; Order No. 2250] 

Changes or Corrections to Mail 

Classification Schedule 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing 

rules addressing changes and 

corrections to the Mail Classification 

Schedule (MCS). The proposed rules 

establish separate procedures for 

material changes in services offered in 

connection with products and 

corrections to product descriptions. The 

primary purposes of the proposed rules 

are to ensure that the MCS accurately 

describes the current product offerings 

of the Postal Service and to ensure 

compliance with the relevant statutory 

provisions when material changes to 

product offerings are made. The 

Commission invites public comment on 

the proposals. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 

24, 2014. Reply comments are due: 

January 8, 2015. 

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: 

Regulatory History 

72 FR 63662, November 9, 2007. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Proposed Rules 

IV. Explanation of Proposed Rules 

V. Comments Requested 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

With this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission requests 

comments and suggestions on proposed 

rules regarding requests to change or 

correct the Mail Classification Schedule 

(MCS). 

The primary purposes of this 

rulemaking are to ensure that the MCS 

accurately describes the current product 

offerings of the Postal Service and to 

ensure compliance with the relevant 

provisions of title 39 of the United 

States Code when material changes to 

product offerings are made. The 

proposed rules also are intended to 

provide the Commission with additional 

flexibility to ensure that the Postal 

Service is filing under the appropriate 

subpart of part 3020 of title 39 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

After the passage of the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(PAEA) in 2006,1 the Commission 

issued regulations to implement PAEA’s 

modern system of rate regulation, 

including regulations on the procedures 

to follow in changing the product lists 

and MCS.2 In proposing the modern 

system of rate regulation, the 

Commission cautioned that the intent is 

that these regulations provide a 

reasonable starting point and that will 

they evolve over time.3

As the Postal Service and Commission 

have used the current regulatory scheme 

to make modifications to the product 

lists and changes to the MCS, a 

procedural gap has been identified. 

Remedying this procedural gap should 

make the process operate better. 

The current regulations have not 

satisfactorily addressed MCS changes 

that are more significant than minor 

corrections to the MCS but do not rise 

to the level of a product list 

modification. In these cases, the current 

regulations regarding the filing 

requirements sometimes do not provide 

the Commission with sufficient 

information to make the necessary 

determination as to whether an MCS 

change is appropriate. As a result, the 

Commission has undertaken additional 

questioning during the proceedings, 

leading to the expenditure of additional 

resources by the Commission, the Postal 

Service, and other interested persons. 

The use of this additional inquiry 

process in such cases has also 

complicated the Commission’s review. 

These regulations are designed to 

clarify and streamline the process by 

specifying that the Postal Service 

provide all of the necessary information 

for the Commission to make its 

determination on such requests at the 

outset of the proceeding. 

II. Background 

The Commission is charged with 

maintaining accurate product lists. See 

39 U.S.C. 3642. In Docket No. RM2007– 

1, the Commission promulgated rules 

establishing the MCS as the vehicle for 

presenting the product lists with 

necessary descriptive content. Order No. 

26 at 85. Those rules are codified at 39 

CFR part 3020. Subpart A describes the 

contents of the MCS and provides for its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Subparts B, C, and D specify the 

procedures whereby the Postal Service, 

mail users, and the Commission may 

seek to modify the product lists in the 

MCS. Subpart E specifies procedures 

that allow the Postal Service to update 

provisions of the MCS with minimal 

Commission review. Order No. 26 at 97. 

Subpart F establishes that size and 

weight limitations appear in the MCS 

and provides procedures for Postal 

Service updates to those limits. 

This proposed rulemaking concerns 

subpart E. In its order proposing the 

rules that are codified at part 3020, the 

Commission explained that subpart E 

requires the Postal Service to ensure 

that product descriptions in the MCS 

accurately reflect the current offerings of 

Postal Service products and services. Id. 

The Commission accordingly proposed 

procedures whereby the Postal Service 

could submit corrections to product 

descriptions so that the Commission 

could update the MCS. Id. The 

Commission recognized that there are 

inherent limits in the scope or 

magnitude of an update allowable under 

subpart E. It indicated that updates that 

would modify the market dominant or 

the competitive product lists are 

specifically excluded from subpart E.4

The Commission concluded that a 

proposed update may not change the 

nature of a service to such an extent that 

it effectively creates a new product or 

eliminates an existing product. Id. 

In comments on the proposed rules, 

McGraw-Hill and Valpak expressed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5 Docket No. RM2007–1, Comments of the 

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in Response to Order 

No. 26, Proposing Regulations to Establish a System 

of Ratemaking, September 24, 2007, at 2–3 

(McGraw-Hill Comments). 

6 Docket No. RM2007–1, Valpak Direct Marketing 

Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. 

Comments on Regulations Establishing a System of 

Ratemaking in Response to Commission Order No. 

26, September 24, 2007, at 14 (Valpak Comments). 

7 Docket No. MC2013–45, Order Approving Minor 

Classification Change, May 13, 2013 (Order No. 

1713); Docket No. MC2013–28, Order Approving 

Minor Classification Changes Related to Certain 

Ancillary Services, January 24, 2013 (Order No. 

1631); MC2012–17, Order Approving Minor 

Classification Change Concerning Timor-Leste, May 

23, 2012 (Order No. 1351). 

8See Docket No. MC2012–26, Order on Elective 

Filing Regarding Post Office Box Service 

Enhancements, February 14, 2013 (Order No. 1657). 

9 Docket No. MC2012–26, Response of the United 

States Postal Service to Order No. 1366, July 9, 

2012, at 4 (Postal Service Response). 

10 Docket No. MC2011–28, Order Regarding 

Commercial First-Class Package Service, August 31, 

2011 (Order No. 835). The Postal Service also 

proposed to change the name of the product from 

Lightweight Commercial Parcels to Commercial 

First-Class Package Service. Id. at 2. 

11 Docket No. MC2011–28, Public Representative 

Comments Concerning Lightweight Commercial 

Parcels Classification Change, August 22, 2011, at 

2–3 (PR Comments). 

12 Docket No. MC2011–28, Response of the 

United States Postal Service to Public 

Representative Comments, August 24, 2011, at 2 

(Postal Service Response to PR Comments). 

concern that proceedings under subpart 

E would not provide for Commission 

review or allow for public comment. 

McGraw-Hill posed a hypothetical 

example whereby the Postal Service 

could use the procedures in subpart E 

to make major changes to the Outside 

County Periodicals subclass, including 

eventual full zoning of the editorial 

pound charge for Outside County 

Periodicals mail, without substantive 

review by the Commission.5 Both 

commenters observed that parties 

adversely affected by proposed changes 

would not have an opportunity to raise 

the issue with the Commission until 

after the change was implemented. 

McGraw-Hill Comments at 3–4; Valpak 

Comments at 16. Valpak also expressed 

concern that classification changes of 

considerable importance could be made 

pursuant to subpart E and suggested that 

comments and Commission review of 

proposals should be permitted.6 Both 

commenters concluded that postimplementation review would be 

inadequate to remedy potential abuse of 

the subpart E procedures. McGraw-Hill 

Comments at 4; Valpak Comments at 

15–16. 

On October 29, 2007, the Commission 

issued Order No. 43, adopting the 

current version of subpart E. Order No. 

43 at 107. Acknowledging the 

commenters’ concerns, the Commission 

noted that there is a continuum of 

possible classification changes, ranging 

from those that only require the Postal 

Service to inform the Commission to 

those that trigger the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3642. Id. The Commission 

confirmed that subpart E was not 

intended to provide an avenue for 

comprehensive pre-implementation 

review of classification changes. Id. at 

108. Nonetheless, so as to provide an 

avenue for public input and to ensure 

that proposals are properly filed under 

the correct rules, the Commission added 

a new provision, § 3020.92. That section 

provides interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on whether the 

planned changes are inconsistent with 

39 U.S.C. 3642. 

Over the course of nearly seven years 

since the Commission adopted the rules, 

it has had numerous occasions to 

consider proposals to amend the MCS 

pursuant to subpart E. The Commission 

has found the procedures provided in 

subpart E to be appropriate when the 

Postal Service proposes minor changes 

to the MCS. These include, for example, 

the Postal Service’s decision to rebrand 

Express Mail as Priority Mail Express, 

the decision to rebrand Delivery 

Confirmation as USPS Tracking, and the 

decision to add Timor-Leste to the 

country price lists for International 

Mail.7 In each of these instances, the 

Commission confirmed that the 

proposed change was minor in nature. 

The streamlined procedures in subpart 

E enabled the Postal Service to update 

the MCS in an expeditious manner, 

subject to limited review. 

However, a recurring challenge to 

requests made pursuant to subpart E has 

emerged. That challenge concerns the 

distinction between minor corrections 

and changes of a more substantial 

nature. Because subpart E is limited to 

minor corrections while subparts B, C, 

and D are limited to proposals to create 

a new product, or transfer or eliminate 

an existing product, a gap exists when 

the Postal Service proposes to change an 

existing product to a degree greater than 

what could be considered a minor 

correction. An examination of cases 

involving such gaps is instructive. 

In several instances, the Commission 

has explicitly recognized the gap in its 

rules. In Docket No. MC2012–26, the 

Commission considered the Postal 

Service’s proposal to offer enhanced 

services at competitive post office box 

service locations.8 The enhanced 

services consisted of email notification, 

street addressing, and private carrier 

package delivery. The Postal Service, 

which began offering the services in 

early 2012, did so without instituting 

proceedings to change the MCS. In 

March 2012, competitors filed a 

complaint challenging the Postal 

Service’s offering of the enhanced 

services. The Commission held the 

complaint in abeyance and invited the 

Postal Service to make a filing pursuant 

to part 3020 subpart B. In its filing, the 

Postal Service argued that since the 

service enhancements were never 

intended to create a new product, the 

procedures provided under subpart B 

were superfluous.9 The Commission 

agreed that the enhanced services did 

not change the competitive post office 

box service as to constitute a new 

product, and therefore did not trigger 

the filing requirement under subpart B. 

Order No. 1657 at 20. The Commission 

noted that the changes were ill-suited to 

subpart E as well. Because the enhanced 

competitive post office boxes did not 

constitute a new product and because 

the changes were not minor technical 

corrections to an existing product, the 

Commission observed that such changes 

did not fit squarely within either set of 

rules. Id. at 23. 

In Docket No. MC2011–28, the Postal 

Service filed notice pursuant to subpart 

E proposing to narrow the letter 

prohibition for Commercial First-Class 

Package Service to cover only the 

Commercial Base portion of the 

product.10 The Public Representative 

argued that the proposed change was 

substantive in nature and therefore 

should have been brought pursuant to 

subpart B.11 He stated that there is a 

void in the Commission’s rules for 

addressing changes that fall between a 

scrivener’s error and a required change 

to a product list. PR Comments at 2. The 

Public Representative asked the 

Commission to promulgate rules to 

address this procedural gap. Id. at 2, n.2. 

The Postal Service argued that subpart 

E was appropriate for the proposed 

changes, but acknowledged that there is 

some ambiguity in the rules.12 The 

Commission found that the Postal 

Service’s initial subpart E filing did not 

provide sufficient information for it to 

effectively review the proposed changes. 

Order No. 835 at 7. It noted that 

obtaining sufficient information is 

particularly important in cases brought 

pursuant to subpart E because of the 

short time period for interested persons 

to comment and the Commission to act. 

Id. at 7–8. Although subsequent 

information cured the information 

defect in that case, the Commission 

indicated that it would consider adding 

new regulations for classification 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69783 

13See Docket No. MC2011–5, Order Approving 

Mail Classification Changes, February 8, 2011 

(Order No. 667). 

14 Docket No. MC2012–8, Order Approving Mail 

Classification Change, February 10, 2012 (Order No. 

1225). 

15See 39 CFR 3020.30, 39 CFR 3020.50, and 39 

CFR 3020.70. 

16Mail Classification Schedule 1550.1(a). 

17This is not to suggest that the number of 

comments that a proposal receives establishes 

whether the proposal is a material change or a 

minor correction. However, the existence and 

content of comments from interested persons will 

provide some evidence of the materiality of a 

proposal. 

changes that rise above the level of 

corrections to the MCS. Id. at 8. 

In Docket No. MC2011–5, the Postal 

Service filed notice pursuant to subpart 

E of proposed amendments to the MCS 

language for the Outside County 

Periodicals to modify the method of 

calculating bundle and pallet charges 

for flats that are co-mailed or copalletized with Standard Mail flats.13

Though it approved the request, the 

Commission observed that no other 

category in the Commission’s rules 

suited the nature of the request, which 

involved preparation changes and 

limited adjustments to postage 

assessment. Order No. 667 at 5. 

In Docket No. MC2012–8, the Postal 

Service filed notice under subpart E of 

amendments to the MCS raising the 

minimum dollar amount required to 

qualify for a Global Expedited Package 

Services (GEPS) contract.14 The Public 

Representative contended that the 

proposed change was not minor in 

terms of its effect on small and medium 

size businesses. Order No. 1225 at 2. 

The Commission approved the request, 

noting that the Public Representative 

did not allege that the change added, 

removed, or transferred a product, 

which would trigger the filing 

requirements under subpart B. 

The foregoing examples illustrate the 

need for regulations that close the gap 

between modifications brought pursuant 

to subparts B through D and corrections 

to the product descriptions brought 

pursuant to subpart E. The rules 

proposed herein are designed to close 

that gap. 

III. Proposed Rules 

The rules proposed in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking replace current 

subpart E with a new subpart E. The 

new subpart E establishes separate 

procedures for: (1) Changes to services 

offered in connection with products, 

and (2) corrections to product 

descriptions. 

Under current subpart E, every 

proposed alteration to the MCS is made 

using one of two categorical means. 

Alterations may be proposed either as 

modifications to the product lists or as 

corrections to the product descriptions 

in the MCS. The rules proposed herein 

create an additional third categorical 

means of altering the MCS—changes to 

the product descriptions. It is the 

Commission’s expectation that these 

three categories—modifications, 

material changes, and minor 

corrections—will provide a 

comprehensive regime governing all 

alterations to the MCS. 

Subparts B, C, and D will continue to 

provide procedures for modifications to 

the product lists in the MCS. The rules 

define modification as adding a product 

to a list, removing a product from a list, 

or moving a product from one list to the 

other list.15 Proposed subpart E will 

provide new rules governing changes to 

product descriptions and modify 

existing rules governing corrections to 

product descriptions. 

It is the Commission’s expectation 

that when the Postal Service proposes to 

modify the MCS it will file its proposal 

in one of three ways, either as a 

modification to the product lists under 

subpart B, a change to a product 

description under subpart E, or a 

correction to a product description also 

under subpart E. In each instance, the 

Postal Service will need to determine 

into which category its proposal falls. 

The current rules define a modification 

as the addition of a product to a product 

list, the removal of a product from a 

product list, or the moving of a product 

from one list to the other. Thus, the 

rules presuppose that modifications 

operate at the product level and will not 

just involve changes to product 

descriptions. By contrast, a change or 

correction to a product description will 

operate at the sub-product level. Under 

the proposed rules, the Commission 

expects that the Postal Service will 

employ either the rules for changes to 

product descriptions or the rules for 

corrections to product descriptions 

whenever it seeks to alter the MCS 

language for existing products. 

A. Changes to Product Descriptions 

The proposed rules distinguish 

between material changes and minor 

corrections to product descriptions. The 

proposed rules that apply to changes are 

codified at §§ 3020.80 through 3020.83, 

and apply to changes that are material 

(i.e., not minor) in nature. The 

Commission expects that the Postal 

Service will make a threshold 

determination in each case as to 

whether the proposed alteration is 

material or minor in nature when it 

seeks to alter a product description. 

In determining whether a proposed 

alteration is a material change that is 

subject to the § 3020.80 rules, the most 

important consideration is the degree to 

which the proposed alteration affects 

the characteristics of the product. The 

perspectives of the Postal Service, mail 

users, competitors, and stakeholders 

will be relevant to this determination. 

The post office box enhanced services 

at issue in Docket No. MC2012–26 

provide an example of the type of 

alterations to a product that would 

require a filing under the proposed rules 

governing material changes to a product 

description. In that docket, the 

Commission considered the addition of 

email notification, street addressing, 

and private carrier package delivery to 

the existing competitive Post Office Box 

Service product. The MCS product 

description indicated that Post Office 

Box Service provides the customer with 

a locked receptacle for the receipt of 

mail during specified hours of access to 

the receptacle.16 Under the proposed 

rules, the enhanced services would 

merit a filing to amend the MCS under 

§ 3020.80. Relevant factors to support 

this conclusion are that the enhanced 

services significantly changed the post 

office box user experience—in 

particular by permitting customers to 

receive packages delivered by private 

carriers—and that the enhanced services 

could significantly impact private mail 

box competitors, who prior to the 

enhancements distinguished their 

services from post office box service on 

the basis of the similar enhancements 

that they offered and that the Postal 

Service did not. Numerous competitors 

submitted comments suggesting that the 

Postal Service would have an unfair 

competitive advantage if it were 

permitted to offer the enhanced 

services. Order No. 1657 at 3, 11–13.17

Because the changes to the MCS product 

description that the enhanced services 

brought about were more than minor 

corrections, such changes would require 

a filing under the proposed rules 

pertaining to material changes. 

The proposed rules governing changes 

to MCS product descriptions require the 

Postal Service to make a showing that is 

less onerous than the showing that is 

required for modifications to the 

product lists but more robust than the 

showing that it is required for 

corrections to MCS product 

descriptions. A recurring challenge in 

minor correction cases has been the 

Commission’s need to obtain sufficient 

information to evaluate the proposal 

and determine whether it comports with 

title 39 and Commission regulations. 

Under the current rules that apply to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18 In cases in which commenters have expressed 

concerns that a proposed change is more than a 

minor correction, the amount of time that it has 

taken for the Commission to complete its review 

has varied. See Docket No. MC2011–5 (95 days); 

Docket No. MC2011–28 (19 days); Docket No. 

MC2012–8 (11 days); and Docket No. MC2012–26 

(189 days). 

19See 39 CFR 3020.30.34, 39 CFR 3020.55, and 

39 CFR 3020.75. 

corrections, the Commission is required 

to find that the proposed corrections are 

not inconsistent with 39 U.S.C. 3642. 39 

CFR 3020.93. Commenters have 

sometimes stated that the Postal 

Service’s notice does not provide 

sufficient supporting justification. See, 

e.g., PR Comments at 3. The proposed 

rules for material changes address this 

concern by requiring the Postal Service 

to provide supporting justification that 

describes the change and the rationale 

for it, explains why the change will not 

result in a violation of statutory and 

regulatory standards, and describes the 

impact that the change will have on 

mail users and competitors, if 

applicable. 

Under the proposed rules, the Postal 

Service will be required to file requests 

to change the MCS no later than 30 days 

prior to the implementation date of the 

proposed change. This is a longer period 

than the current rules governing 

corrections, which require that the 

Postal Service provide notice of the 

correction 15 days prior to the effective 

date. See 39 CFR 3020.91. As 

commenters have noted, when the 

Postal Service proposes changes to the 

MCS that are more than minor 

corrections, the 15-day notice period 

runs the risk of permitting the change to 

occur before the Commission has 

completed its review. See, e.g., PR 

Comments at 3. The problem has arisen, 

in part, because the Commission has 

needed to issue information requests to 

obtain sufficient information so that it 

could make a threshold determination 

as to whether a proposal was properly 

filed as a minor correction to the 

product description. The Commission 

anticipates that in most instances a 30- 

day review period for changes will give 

it and members of the public sufficient 

time to issue any necessary information 

requests, offer comments, and review 

the request. It also expects that the 

proposed rules, by filling the existing 

gap between the rules for modifications 

to the product lists and the rules for 

corrections to the MCS product 

descriptions, will reduce the need for 

the Commission to issue information 

requests on the threshold question of 

whether the request was filed under the 

proper rules and will streamline and 

reduce the time that it takes for the 

Commission to process requests.18

The proposed rules provide the 

Commission with a menu of options for 

acting on a request. While the current 

rules that apply to corrections do not 

delineate what action the Commission 

may take if a proposal is determined to 

be inconsistent with section 3642, the 

proposed rules indicate that the 

Commission may approve the proposed 

changes, reject the proposed changes, 

provide the Postal Service with an 

opportunity to amend the proposed 

changes, direct the Postal Service to file 

under a different subpart, institute 

further proceedings, or take other 

appropriate action. This proposed rule 

is based on a similar provision in the 

Commission’s current rules governing 

modifications to the product lists, 

which provide more guidance in terms 

of actions that the Commission may 

take.19 In addition, a new provision that 

is not currently part of the 

Commission’s rules governing 

modifications to the product lists, but 

which is included here, permits the 

Commission to redirect requests when it 

believes the request should be filed 

under a different subpart of part 3020. 

The Commission expects this will 

reduce the need for it to rely on 

information requests to make a 

threshold determination as to whether a 

request was filed under the appropriate 

rules. 

B. Corrections to Product Descriptions 

The proposed rules modify the 

existing rules governing corrections to 

MCS product descriptions, which are 

codified at §§ 3020.90 through 3020.92. 

The proposed rules codify Commission 

precedent holding that the rules 

applicable to corrections apply only to 

corrections to the product description 

that are minor in nature. 

The proposed rules will require the 

Postal Service, when it files notice of a 

correction to a product description, to 

explain why the correction does not 

constitute a material change to the 

product description. This will provide 

the Postal Service with an opportunity 

to explain at the outset why its proposal 

is a minor correction rather than a 

material change to a product 

description. 

The proposed rules also require the 

Postal Service, when it files notice of a 

correction to a product description, to 

explain why the correction is consistent 

with any applicable provisions of title 

39. Under the current rules, the 

Commission is required to make a 

determination that the correction is not 

inconsistent with section 3642. 39 CFR 

3020.93. However, the current rules do 

not require the Postal Service to provide 

any justification or explanation to 

support such a Commission finding. 

Without such information, the 

Commission has found it necessary in 

past proceedings to request clarifying 

information from the Postal Service to 

fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. The 

proposed rules’ revised approach will 

provide the Postal Service with an 

opportunity to explain at the outset why 

its proposal is consistent with 

applicable statutory provisions instead 

of relying on an inquiry process which 

can complicate the Commission’s 

review. 

This approach would also harmonize 

the Commission’s rules for reviews of 

corrections to product descriptions with 

those governing modifications to the 

product lists. Such rules require the 

party making the request to show that 

the proposed modification is consistent 

with the relevant statutory provisions 

and Commission regulations. See 39 

CFR 3020.32, 3020.52, and 3020.72. 

This is also the better approach for 

reviews of corrections to product 

descriptions, as the Postal Service will, 

in most cases, have the best information 

as to the impact that the correction will 

have. The proposed rules require the 

Postal Service to address any possible 

legal issues when it files its notice. The 

Commission expects that this will give 

commenters and the Commission notice 

of possible legal issues so that they may 

be addressed within the 15-day 

window. 

The proposed rules provide the 

Commission with several options for 

acting on the notice. They provide that 

the Commission may approve the 

proposed corrections, reject the 

proposed corrections, provide the Postal 

Service with an opportunity to amend 

the proposed corrections, direct the 

Postal Service to file under a different 

subpart, institute further proceedings, or 

take other appropriate action. The 

Commission expects that the rule 

permitting it to direct the Postal Service 

to file under a different subpart of part 

3020 will reduce the need to rely on 

information requests to make a 

threshold determination as to whether a 

request was filed under the appropriate 

rules. 

IV. Explanation of Proposed Rules 

The following is a section-by-section 

analysis of the proposed rules: 

Proposed § 3020.80 establishes the 

basic criteria for proposals to change 

product descriptions under subpart E. It 

indicates that the rules apply to material 

changes, as opposed to minor 

corrections, to MCS product 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69785 

descriptions. In determining whether a 

proposed alteration is a material change, 

the most important consideration is the 

degree to which the proposed alteration 

affects the characteristics of the product. 

The perspectives of the Postal Service, 

mail users, competitors, and 

stakeholders will be relevant to this 

determination. Paragraph (a) requires 

that the Postal Service submit a request 

to change the product description no 

later than 30 days prior to implementing 

the proposed change. Paragraph (b) 

indicates that requests shall include a 

copy of the proposed change and 

supporting justification. 

Proposed § 3020.81 delineates the 

supporting justification that the Postal 

Service is to provide. For all products, 

this includes a description of the 

changes, the rationale for them, and a 

description of the impact that the 

changes will have on users of the 

product and competitors. For market 

dominant products, the Postal Service is 

also required to explain why the 

changes are not inconsistent with 39 

U.S.C. 3622(d) and 39 CFR part 3010. 

For competitive products, the Postal 

Service is also required to show that the 

changes will not result in a violation of 

39 U.S.C. 3633 and 39 CFR part 3015. 

Proposed § 3020.82 requires that the 

Commission establish a docket, publish 

notice of the request on its Web site, 

designate a public representative, and 

provide interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposed changes. 

Proposed § 3020.83 requires that the 

Commission, upon review of the request 

and any comments: Approve the 

proposed changes; reject the proposed 

changes; provide the Postal Service with 

an opportunity to amend the proposed 

changes; direct the Postal Service to file 

under a different subpart; institute 

further proceedings; or direct other 

action that the Commission considers 

appropriate. 

Proposed § 3020.90 establishes the 

basic criteria for proposals to correct 

product descriptions under subpart E. It 

indicates that the rules apply only to 

minor corrections of product 

descriptions in the MCS. Paragraph (b) 

requires the Postal Service to file notice 

of corrections to product descriptions 

no later than 15 days prior to the 

effective date of the corrections. 

Paragraph (c) requires that the notice 

explain why the corrections do not 

constitute material changes for purposes 

of § 3020.80, explain why the 

corrections are consistent with any 

applicable provision of title 39, and 

requires the Postal Service to include a 

copy of the proposed corrections. 

Proposed § 3020.91 requires that the 

Commission establish a docket, publish 

notice of the proposal on its Web site, 

designate a public representative, and 

provide interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

proposal. 

Proposed § 3020.92 requires that the 

Commission, upon review of the notice 

and any comments: Approve the 

proposed corrections; reject the 

proposed corrections; provide the Postal 

Service with an opportunity to amend 

the proposed corrections; direct the 

Postal Service to file under a different 

subpart; institute further proceedings; or 

take other action that the Commission 

considers appropriate. 

V. Comments Requested 

Interested persons are invited to 

provide written comments concerning 

the proposed rules. Comments may 

include specific language amending the 

proposed rules. 

Comments are due no later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. All 

comments and suggestions received will 

be available for review on the 

Commission’s Web site, http://

www.prc.gov. Interested persons are 

further invited to review the 

submissions and provide follow-up 

comments and suggestions within 15 

additional days (that is, within 45 days 

of the publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register). 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. 

Richardson is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in the 

above-captioned docket. 

VI. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. Docket No. RM2015–6 is 

established for the purpose of receiving 

comments with respect to the proposed 

rules attached to this Order. 

2. The Commission proposes to 

amend its regulations at part 3020 

subpart E as shown below the signature 

of the Secretary. 

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

E. Richardson is designated as an officer 

of the Commission to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

4. Interested persons may submit 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. 

5. Reply comments may be filed no 

later than 45 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register in conformance with official 

publication requirements. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS 

■ 1. The authority citation of part 3020 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 

3682. 

■ 2. Revise subpart E of part 3020 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—Requests Initiated by the Postal 

Service to Make Material Changes or Minor 

Corrections to the Mail Classification 

Schedule 

Sec. 

3020.80 Material changes to product 

descriptions. 

3020.81 Supporting justification for 

changes to product descriptions. 

3020.82 Docket and notice. 

3020.83 Commission review. 

3020.84–3020.89 [Reserved] 

3020.90 Minor corrections to product 

descriptions. 

3020.91 Docket and notice. 

3020.92 Commission Review. 

Subpart E—Requests Initiated by the 

Postal Service To Make Material 

Changes or Minor Corrections to the 

Mail Classification Schedule 

§ 3020.80 Material changes to product 

descriptions. 

(a) Whenever the Postal Service 

proposes material changes to a product 

description in the Mail Classification 

Schedule, no later than 30 days prior to 

implementing the proposed changes, it 

shall submit to the Commission a 

request to change the product 

description in the Mail Classification 

Schedule. 

(b) The request shall: 

(1) Include a copy of the applicable 

sections of the Mail Classification 

Schedule and the proposed changes 

therein in legislative format; and 

(2) Provide all supporting justification 

for the changes upon which the Postal 

Service proposes to rely. 

§ 3020.81 Supporting justification for 

changes to product descriptions. 

(a) Supporting justification for 

changes to a product description in the 

Mail Classification Schedule shall 

include a description of, and rationale 

for, the proposed changes to the product 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

description; and the additional material 

in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b)(1) As to market dominant 

products, explain why the changes are 

not inconsistent with each requirement 

of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d) and part 3010 of 

this chapter; or 

(2) As to competitive products, 

explain why the changes will not result 

in the violation of any of the standards 

of 39 U.S.C. 3633 and part 3015 of this 

chapter. 

(c) Describe the impact that the 

changes will have on users of the 

product and on competitors. 

§ 3020.82 Docket and notice. 

(a) The Commission shall take the 

actions identified in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this section. 

(b) Establish a docket for each request 

to change a product description in the 

Mail Classification Schedule; 

(c) Publish notice of the request on its 

Web site; 

(d) Designate an officer of the 

Commission to represent the interests of 

the general public in the docket; and 

(e) Provide interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on whether the 

proposed changes are consistent with 

title 39 and applicable Commission 

regulations. 

§ 3020.83 Commission review. 

(a) The Commission shall review the 

request and any comments filed. The 

Commission shall take one of the 

actions identified in paragraphs (b) 

through (g) of this section. 

(b) Approve the proposed changes, 

subject to editorial corrections; 

(c) Reject the proposed changes; 

(d) Provide the Postal Service with an 

opportunity to amend the proposed 

changes; 

(e) Direct the Postal Service to make 

an appropriate filing under a different 

subpart; 

(f) Institute further proceedings; or 

(g) Direct other action that the 

Commission considers appropriate. 

§§ 3020.84–3020.89 [Reserved] 

§ 3020.90 Minor corrections to product 

descriptions. 

(a) The Postal Service shall ensure 

that product descriptions in the Mail 

Classification Schedule accurately 

represent the current offerings of the 

Postal Service. 

(b) The Postal Service shall submit 

minor corrections to product 

descriptions in the Mail Classification 

Schedule by filing notice with the 

Commission no later than 15 days prior 

to the effective date of the proposed 

corrections. 

(c) The notice shall: 

(1) Explain why the proposed 

corrections do not constitute material 

changes to the product description for 

purposes of § 3020.80; 

(2) Explain why the proposed 

corrections are consistent with any 

applicable provisions of title 39; and 

(3) Include a copy of the applicable 

sections of the Mail Classification 

Schedule and the proposed corrections 

therein in legislative format. 

§ 3020.91 Docket and notice. 

(a) The Commission shall take the 

actions identified in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this section. 

(b) Establish a docket for each 

proposal to correct a product 

description in the Mail Classification 

Schedule; 

(c) Publish notice of the proposal on 

its Web site; 

(d) Designate an officer of the 

Commission to represent the interests of 

the general public in the docket; and 

(e) Provide interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on whether the 

proposed corrections are consistent with 

title 39 and applicable Commission 

regulations. 

§ 3020.92 Commission Review. 

(a) The Commission shall review the 

notice and any comments filed. The 

Commission shall take one of the 

actions identified in paragraphs (b) 

through (g) of this section. 

(b) Approve the proposed corrections, 

subject to editorial corrections; 

(c) Reject the proposed corrections; 

(d) Provide the Postal Service with an 

opportunity to amend the proposed 

corrections; 

(e) Direct the Postal Service to make 

an appropriate filing under a different 

subpart; 

(f) Institute further proceedings; or 

(g) Direct other action that the 

Commission considers appropriate. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27589 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071; FRL–9919–37– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Intalco 

Operations, Tesoro Refining and 

Marketing, and Alcoa Wenatchee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 11, 2014, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register concerning, in part, 

promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) provision for 

regional haze in the State of 

Washington. This action identifies and 

corrects an error in that action by 

adding the factor to convert from tons of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) to pounds of SO2

that was inadvertently left out of the 

amendatory instructions for the FIP for 

the Alcoa Wenatchee Works. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–1071, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: body.steve@epa.gov 

• Mail: Steve Body, U.S. EPA Region 

10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT–150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: 

Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at telephone number: (206) 

553–0782, email address: 

body.steve@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS