Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 30935 

SCHEDULE FOR ALL OTHER ENTITIES—Continued 

Entities required to file 

Filing period 

(anytime during 

the month) 

Study period 

All others in Southeast that did not file in June including all power marketers that sold in the Southeast and have not already been found to 

be Category 1 sellers.

December 2008 ................................ Dec. 1, 2005–Nov. 30, 2006. 

All others in Central that did not file in December including all power marketers that sold in the Central and have not already been found to be 

Category 1 sellers.

June 2009 ........................................ Dec. 1, 2006–Nov. 30, 2007. 

All others in SPP that did not file in June including all power marketers 

that sold in SPP and have not already been found to be Category 1 

sellers.

December 2009 ................................ Dec. 1, 2006–Nov. 30, 2007. 

Others in Southwest that did not file in December and have not been 

found to be Category 1 sellers.

June 2010 ........................................ Dec. 1, 2009–Nov. 30, 2010. 

Others in Northwest that did not file in June and have not been found to 

be Category 1 sellers.

December 2010 ................................ Dec. 1, 2009–Nov. 30, 2010. 

Others in Northeast that did not file in December and have not been 

found to be Category 1 sellers.

June 2011 ........................................ Dec. 1, 2008–Nov. 30, 2009. 

Others in Southeast that did not file in June and have not been found to 

be Category 1 sellers.

December 2011 ................................ Dec. 1, 2008–Nov. 30, 2009. 

Others in Central that did not file in December and have not been found 

to be Category 1 sellers.

June 2012 ........................................ Dec. 1, 2009–Nov. 30, 2010. 

Others in SPP that did not file in June and have not been found to be 

Category 1 sellers.

December 2012 ................................ Dec. 1, 2009–Nov. 30, 2010. 

Others in Southwest that did not file in December and have not been 

found to be Category 1 sellers.

June 2013 ........................................ Dec. 1, 2010–Nov. 30, 2011. 

Others in Northwest that did not file in June and have not been found to 

be Category 1 sellers.

December 2013 ................................ Dec. 1, 2010–Nov. 30, 2011. 

[FR Doc. E9–14784 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 1 

46 CFR Part 1 

[USCG–2009–0314] 

RIN 1625–ZA22 

Establishment of Suspension and 

Revocation National Center of 

Expertise 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule makes nonsubstantive, technical changes to Titles 

33 and 46 of the CFR to reflect the 

authorization and establishment of the 

Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation 

National Center of Expertise (S&R 

NCOE). The S&R NCOE is responsible 

for performing suspension and 

revocation functions regarding 

Merchant Mariner Credentials. 

Investigating Officers (IOs), both 

military and civilian employees, are 

assigned to the S&R NCOE for this 

purpose. These changes affect internal 

Coast Guard organization and 

functioning only and will have no 

substantive effect on mariners or other 

members of the public. 

DATES: Effective on June 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket, are part of USCG–2009–0314 

and are available online by going to 

http://www.regulations.gov, selecting 

the Advanced Docket Search option on 

the right side of the screen, inserting 

USCG–2009–0314 in the Docket ID box, 

pressing Enter, and then clicking on the 

item in the Docket ID column. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

at two locations: The Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays, and at S&R 

COE co-located with the National 

Maritime Center, 100 Forbes Drive, 

Martinsburg, WV between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call 

Commander Scott Budka, Supervisor, 

S&R NCOE, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 

304–433–3744. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone or 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this final 

rule without prior notice and 

opportunity to comment pursuant to 

authority under section 4(a) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule, 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment, when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because is 

unnecessary. This rulemaking makes 

amendments to rules regarding agency 

organization and functioning. As such, 

comments are unnecessary because they 

would not change the Coast Guard’s 

internal delegation of authority and 

duty regarding the Suspension and 

Revocation process or provide 

additional expertise regarding Coast 

Guard functioning. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register because these changes affect 

internal Coast Guard organization and 

functioning only and will have no 

substantive effect on the public. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
30936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Background and Purpose 

The Coast Guard published the 

Marine Safety Performance Plan for 

Fiscal Years 2009–2014 in November 

2008. The plan is available at: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg54/mspp.asp. 

The plan announced the Coast Guard’s 

intention to establish National Centers 

of Expertise to provide venues for 

professional development of Coast 

Guard personnel. One such National 

Center of Expertise is the Suspension 

and Revocation National Center of 

Expertise (S&R NCOE). The Coast Guard 

is charged by law to ensure that over 

200,000 credentialed merchant mariners 

are competent and their conduct 

promotes marine safety, security and 

protection of the marine environment. 

See generally, 46 U.S.C. Part E. One of 

the mechanisms the Coast Guard 

utilizes to ensure the safe operation of 

the Maritime Transportation System 

(MTS) and protect the lives and safety 

of those at sea is our suspension and 

revocation (S&R) process regarding 

Merchant Mariner’s Credentials 

(MMCs). See 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77. The 

Coast Guard recognizes that mariners 

spend a great deal of time and effort to 

receive and to maintain their MMCs, 

which provides them a livelihood. The 

significant implications that result from 

the suspension or revocation of an MMC 

demand that Coast Guard investigating 

officers (IOs) be properly trained and 

proficient in the S&R process and 

administrative hearing procedures. The 

creation of an S&R NCOE will help to 

improve the professionalism and 

proficiency of IOs involved in the S&R 

process and administrative hearing 

procedures, but will not change the S&R 

process or procedures. The S&R NCOE 

will initially operate as a detached duty 

office of the Coast Guard’s Office of 

Quality Assurance and Traveling 

Inspections (CG–546), with future plans 

to operate under the Commander, Coast 

Guard Force Readiness Command 

(FORCECOM). 

Discussion of the Rule 

This rule amends Coast Guard 

regulations to incorporate the S&R 

NCOE into the S&R process. 

Specifically, changes to 33 CFR 1.01–20 

and 46 CFR 1.01–15 update the 

authority of the Commanding Officer of 

the National Maritime Center to refer 

issues regarding MMCs to the S&R 

NCOE, in addition to the current 

process of referring such cases to the 

processing Regional Examination Center 

or the cognizant Officer in Charge, 

Marine Inspection (OCMI). This update 

broadens the team of Coast Guard 

personnel who may handle a S&R case, 

but will not affect the process or 

procedures for a mariner who is the 

subject of an S&R case. 

This rule also updates the S&R 

process to reflect that the IOs at the S&R 

NCOE are authorized to initiate S&R 

proceedings by issuing complaints 

directly to mariners and handle all other 

aspects of S&R case processing. Current 

regulations authorize an OCMI, or an IO 

under the supervision of an OCMI, to 

initiate an S&R action. Under 46 CFR 

5.15, IOs are Coast Guard officials 

designated by either an OCMI, a District 

Commander, or Commandant for the 

purpose of conducting investigations of 

matters pertaining to the conduct or 

persons applying for or holding MMCs, 

among other matters. In accordance 

with internal delegation of authority 

and duty, IOs assigned to the S&R NCOE 

will be designated as IOs by the 

Commandant, and as such will be 

authorized to initiate S&R actions under 

existing authority in 46 CFR 5.15. To 

reflect this, 46 CFR 1.01–25 is amended 

by replacing specific language regarding 

the IOs with a cross-reference to the 

definition of IOs in 46 CFR 5.15. This 

update also broadens the team of Coast 

Guard personnel who may handle a S&R 

case, but will not affect the process or 

procedures for a mariner who is the 

subject of an S&R case. 

Section 1.01–25 is also amended by 

updating specific terms used to describe 

the S&R process, but these changes are 

nonsubstantive and reflect only changes 

in current term usage. This amendment 

will make the general flow of functions 

information found in Part 1 compatible 

with the existing definition and 

authorities of an IO found in Part 5. 

Additionally, 46 CFR 1.01–25(c)(1)(i) is 

updated to accurately reflect that, under 

existing authority in 46 CFR part 5 and 

33 CFR part 20, either party (the Coast 

Guard or the respondent) may appeal an 

Administrative Law Judge’s decision. 

Currently, paragraph 1.01–25(c)(1)(i) 

only addresses appeals filed by a 

respondent, and a new cross-reference 

to 33 CFR 20.1001 points the reader to 

the existing procedures for filing such 

an appeal. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory analysis is not necessary. As 

this rule involves only non-substantive 

changes involving internal Coast Guard 

organization and functioning, it will not 

impose any costs on the public. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. It is not 

expected that this amendment will have 

a significant economic impact on any 

small entities. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) 

that this technical amendment will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This amendment will not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 30937 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not concern an environmental risk 

to health or safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that Order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. This rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded, under figure 2– 

1, paragraph (34)(b), of the Instruction, 

which excludes regulatory actions 

concerning internal agency functions or 

organization, such as delegation of 

authority. This rule concerns Coast 

Guard internal functioning and 

organization. An environmental analysis 

checklist and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Organization and functions, 

Delegation of authority. 

46 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Organization and functions, 

General flow of functions. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 1 and 46 CFR part 1 as follows: 

Title 33 

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 

part 1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 33 U.S.C. 401, 

491, 525, 1321, 2716, and 2716a; 42 U.S.C. 

9615; 49 U.S.C. 322; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 

section 1.01–70 also issued under the 

authority of E.O. 12580, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., 

p. 193; and sections 1.01–80 and 1.01–85 also 

issued under the authority of E.O. 12777, 3 

CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351. 

■ 2. Revise § 1.01–20(b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.01–20 Officer in Charge, Marine 

Inspection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Referring to the processing 

Regional Examination Center (REC), the 

Suspension and Revocation National 

Center of Expertise, or cognizant OCMI 

potential violations of law, negligence, 

misconduct, unskillfulness, 

incompetence or misbehavior of persons 

holding merchant mariner’s documents, 

licenses, certificates or credentials 

issued by the Coast Guard, and 

recommending suspension or revocation 

under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 when 

deemed appropriate; and 

* * * * * 

Title 46 

PART 1—ORGANIZATION, GENERAL 

COURSE AND METHODS GOVERNING 

MARINE SAFETY FUNCTIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 46 CFR 

part 1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 633; 46 

U.S.C. 7701; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Pub. L. 

107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 

§ 1.01–35 also issued under the authority of 

44 U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 4. Revise § 1.01–15(c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.01–15 Organization; Districts; National 

Maritime Center. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Refer to the processing Regional 

Examination Center (REC), the 

Suspension and Revocation National 

Center of Expertise, or cognizant OCMI 

potential violations of law, negligence, 

misconduct, unskillfulness, 

incompetence or misbehavior of persons 

holding merchant mariner’s documents, 

licenses, certificates or credentials 

issued by the Coast Guard, and 

recommend suspension or revocation 

under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 when 

deemed appropriate; and 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 1.01–25(c)(1) and (c)(1)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1.01–25 General flow of functions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) In the United States, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Territory of Guam, the Virgin Islands, 

and other possessions, the proceedings 

are initiated by the issuance of a 

complaint against the holder of the 

Coast Guard credential. A Coast Guard 

Investigating Officer, as defined in 46 

CFR 5.15, causes the complaint to be 

served on the person described therein 

(respondent) who is a holder of a Coast 

Guard credential. At a hearing the Coast 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
30938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term ‘‘non-public materials’’ as used in this 

order is defined in 39 CFR 3007.1(b). Essentially 

‘‘non-public materials’’ means any document, 

information, or thing filed with the Commission 

and claimed exempt from disclosure under 

applicable sections of the United States Code by the 

Postal Service or protected from disclosure under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) by a third 

party with a proprietary interest in the materials. 

2PRC Order No. 96, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to Establish a Procedure for According 

Appropriate Confidentiality, August 13, 2008 

(Order No. 96). 

3PRC Order No. 194, Second Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to Establish a Procedure for According 

Appropriate Confidentiality, March 20, 2009 (Order 

No. 194). 

Guard submits evidence to support the 

allegations of the complaint, while the 

respondent may submit evidence in 

rebuttal or mitigation. The 

Administrative Law Judge renders a 

decision on the basis of the evidence 

adduced at the hearing and the law. The 

Administrative Law Judge’s decision is 

given to the respondent. 

(i) In a case where an appeal is made 

by either party (Coast Guard or 

respondent), the notice of appeal is filed 

in accordance with the procedures of 33 

CFR 20.1001(a). 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 22, 2009. 

Stefan G. Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, United States Coast 

Guard. 

[FR Doc. E9–15195 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3007 

[Docket No. RM2008–1; Order No. 225] 

Treatment of Non-Public Materials 

Submitted by the Postal Service 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adopting 

a final rule on the treatment of nonpublic material submitted by the Postal 

Service. This action is consistent with 

Commission obligations under a recent 

change in law. 

DATES: Effective July 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

73 FR 50532 (August 26, 2008). 

74 FR 13370 ((March 27, 2009). 

I. Introduction 

II. Statutory Standards for According 

Confidentiality to Materials Filed With the 

Commission 

III. Analysis of Comments on Order No. 194 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In this order, the Postal Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) adopts rules 

which implement 39 U.S.C. 504(g) of 

the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3218 (2006). These 

final rules establish a procedure for 

according appropriate confidentiality 

for non-public materials 1 filed with the 

Commission. 

These rules lay a foundation for the 

Commission’s treatment of non-public 

materials filed by the Postal Service and 

other parties. This order focuses 

primarily on comments which suggest a 

need for changes, and the Commission 

incorporates its discussion of the 

proposed rules, especially for those 

issues that did not receive comments 

published in PRC Order No. 194, March 

20, 2009, located at 74 FR 13370 (March 

27, 2009). The remainder of part I of this 

order includes background information 

and sets forth the procedural history of 

this docket. Part II of this order briefly 

recapitulates the statutory standards for 

according confidentiality. Part III gives 

an overview of the comments and 

presents a discussion of the issues 

raised by the parties in response to the 

second notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Part IV provides a section-by-section 

analysis of each final rule. The complete 

final rules are set forth at the end of this 

order. 

On August 13, 2008, the Commission 

issued a notice and order of proposed 

rulemaking to establish rules governing 

the treatment of non-public materials.2

Order No. 96 proposed rules to meet the 

statutory standards for according 

confidentiality to Postal Service 

materials. The rules proposed in that 

order only applied to materials filed by 

the Postal Service and claimed to be 

non-public. Id. at 5–6. The rules used 

one test applicable to discovery requests 

and requests to publicly disclose Postal 

Service non-public materials. Id. at 7. 

The Commission received eight 

comments and five reply comments on 

the proposed rules. Comments 

identified two main shortcomings in the 

proposed rules. Several commenters 

requested a mechanism to protect thirdparty non-public materials. See, e.g., 

Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc., 

September 25, 2008, at 6–7. Several 

comments also addressed the 

Commission’s departure from the test 

articulated in 39 U.S.C. 504(g)(3)(A), 

which is designed to balance the Postal 

Service’s interest in avoiding 

commercial injury against the public’s 

interest in financial transparency of a 

government agency competing in 

commercial markets. See, e.g., Valpak 

Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and 

Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. 

Comments Regarding Regulations to 

Establish a Procedure for According 

Appropriate Confidentiality, September 

25, 2008, at 11. On review, the 

Commission found those comments 

persuasive and subsequently issued a 

second notice of proposed rulemaking.3

In Order No. 194, the Commission 

modified its proposed rules to address 

commenter issues and respond to 

developments in ongoing proceedings. 

First, the Commission proposed 

procedures for any person to request 

early termination of non-public 

treatment of materials. The proposed 

rule’s standard for decision was the 

balancing test set forth in 39 U.S.C. 

504(g)(3)(A). See id. at 18. Second, the 

Commission proposed rules to govern 

the submission of third-party nonpublic materials and to establish 

procedures for challenging those 

assertions of confidentiality. Id. at 16, 

18–20. 

Because 39 U.S.C. 504(g) is silent as 

to the treatment of materials belonging 

to parties other than the Postal Service, 

the Commission proposed a different 

framework, under its general 

rulemaking authority in 39 U.S.C. 503, 

for assessing challenges to third-party 

assertions of confidentiality. See 

§ 3007.33(b). Id. As 39 U.S.C. 

504(g)(3)(B) directs the Commission to 

establish procedures for ensuring 

appropriate confidentiality for 

information furnished to any party, the 

Commission created §§ 3007.40–.42 and 

3007.50–.52 to develop a framework for 

requests for access to non-public 

materials. Id. Other changes proposed in 

Order No. 194 include provision for 

ongoing access to non-public materials 

which are relevant to compliance and a 

mechanism for a person to make a data 

or information request to the Postal 

Service. Id. at 20. 

II. Statutory Standards for According 

Confidentiality to Materials Filed With 

the Commission 

As discussed in detail in Order No. 96 

and Order No. 194, the PAEA directs the 

Commission to develop procedures for 

handling materials the Postal Service 

claims are non-public. 

39 U.S.C. 504(g)(1) provides that the 

Postal Service may determine ‘‘that any 

document or other matter it provides to 

the Postal Regulatory Commission’’ is 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES