35834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

19See 31 CFR 103.22, 103.30 and 103.33. 

forth in SAR regulations for other 

industries. 

In addition to any proposed SAR 

reporting regulations for non-bank 

residential mortgage lenders or 

originators, FinCEN also may propose to 

require these businesses to file currency 

transaction reports (rather than Form 

8300) or retain certain records, 

including those related to large 

transmittals of funds.19 These changes 

could be accomplished through 

amendments to the definitions 

regulation, 31 CFR 103.11 (specifically, 

to the definition of ‘‘financial 

institution’’), and the exemptions 

regulation, 31 CFR 103.170 (specifically, 

to the temporary exemption from the 

AML program requirement); or they 

could be accomplished by issuing new 

regulations. FinCEN also recognizes that 

persons engaged in residential mortgage 

lending or origination may already have 

programs and practices in place to meet 

existing legal obligations or protect the 

business from fraud and other illegal 

activities. FinCEN requests comment on 

any aspect of possible new regulatory 

requirements, including any factors 

FinCEN should consider in structuring 

new requirements, exceptions, and 

differences from established regulations. 

Useful information would include any 

available estimates of volumes of 

transactions that might be subject to 

particular reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

6. Should Any Persons or Transactions 

Be Exempted From Coverage of AML or 

SAR Regulations? 

FinCEN also solicits comment 

regarding whether there should be 

regulatory exemptions for any category 

of persons engaged in non-bank 

residential mortgage lending or 

origination, or any category of 

transactions conducted by such persons. 

Comments regarding possible 

exemptions should be designed to 

enable FinCEN to evaluate whether the 

risk of money laundering through a 

category of persons or transactions is 

sufficiently small that a proposed rule 

could be crafted that would exempt the 

categories, while also providing 

adequate protection for the industry 

from the risks of money laundering. The 

question of exemption is specifically 

directed to professionals and those 

persons who are primarily engaged in a 

business related to residential mortgage 

lending or origination. 

III. Conclusion 

With this ANPRM, FinCEN is seeking 

input on how FinCEN should 

implement the requirements of the BSA 

with respect to non-bank residential 

mortgage lenders and originators. We 

also seek input on: (1) Estimates and 

financial projections on the likely costs 

of complying with AML program and 

SAR reporting regulations by specific 

types of non-bank residential mortgage 

lenders and originators; (2) the impact 

of any such regulatory requirements on 

industry profitability, growth and 

business practices; (3) the impact of 

these requirements on consumers 

seeking to obtain residential mortgages; 

(4) the effectiveness of examining for 

and enforcing compliance with these 

requirements; and (5) the advisability of 

establishing some minimum transaction 

threshold value or annual volume 

threshold below which some or all of 

these requirements would not apply. We 

also solicit comment on the impact to 

law enforcement and regulatory 

agencies. FinCEN welcomes comments 

on all aspects of the ANPRM, and we 

encourage all interested parties to 

provide their views. 

IV. Executive Order 12866 

This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Therefore, a Regulatory 

Assessment is not required. 

William F. Baity, 

Acting Director, Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network. 

[FR Doc. E9–17117 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0395] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation, Swim Across 

the Sound, Long Island Sound, Port 

Jefferson, NY to Captain’s Cove 

Seaport, Bridgeport, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a permanent special local 

regulation on the navigable waters of 

Long Island Sound between Port 

Jefferson, NY and Captain’s Cove 

Seaport, Bridgeport, CT for the annual 

Swim Across the Sound event. This 

special local regulation is necessary to 

provide for the swimmers’ safety on the 

navigable waters of Long Island Sound. 

Under this proposed regulation, persons 

and vessels are prohibited from entering 

the regulated area during this annual 

event unless entry is authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Long Island Sound 

or by designated on-scene patrol 

personnel. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before August 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0395 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: 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– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail: Chief Petty Officer 

Christie Dixon, Prevention Department, 

USCG Sector Long Island Sound at 

203–468–4459, e-mail 

christie.m.dixon@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0395), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 35835 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand deliver, but please use only one of 

these means. If you submit a comment 

online via http://www.regulations.gov, it 

will be considered received by the Coast 

Guard when you successfully transmit 

the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, 

or mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

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

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert ‘‘USCG– 

2009–0395’’ in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the balloon 

shape in the Actions column. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit comments by mail 

and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

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

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, insert USCG– 

2009–0395 in the Docket ID box, press 

Enter, and then click on the item in the 

Docket ID column. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

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 January 17, 2008 issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Swim Across the Sound has been 

successfully held for over twenty years 

on the waters of Long Island Sound 

between Port Jefferson, NY and 

Bridgeport, CT. This 25 KM swim has 

historically involved over 200 

swimmers and accompanying safety 

craft. The swim course is located 

directly northwest of Port Jefferson, NY 

and extends to Captain’s Cove Seaport, 

Bridgeport, CT. Currently there is no 

regulation in place to protect the 

swimmers or safety craft from the 

hazards imposed by passing water 

traffic and other water related activities. 

To ensure the continued safety of the 

swimmers, safety craft and the boating 

public, the Coast Guard is proposing to 

establish a special local regulation that 

would prohibit unauthorized persons 

and vessel traffic from approaching 

within 100 yards of the swim 

participants as they proceed along the 

race course. This action is intended to 

increase the safety of the swimmers, the 

swimmer’s safety craft and the boating 

community from the hazards posed by 

vessels operating near persons 

participating in this open water swim. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a permanent special local regulation on 

the navigable waters of Long Island 

Sound to exclude all unauthorized 

persons and vessels from approaching 

within 100 yards away from any 

swimmer and/or the planned race 

course. The regulated area is bounded 

by the following approximate points: 

Starting Point of Port Jefferson Beach 

40°58′11.71′′ N, 073°05′51.12′′ W, north 

westerly to the finishing point at 

Captain′s Cove Seaport at approximate 

position 41°09′25.07′′ N, 073°12′47.82′′ 

W. The duration of the event, and thus 

the enforcement period of the special 

local regulation, is generally from 8:30 

a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on the day of the race. 

While the special local regulation will 

be permanent, it will only be enforced 

for approximately 11 hours on the day 

of the race normally held on a single 

day in August. Marine traffic that may 

safely do so may transit outside of the 

area during the enforcement period, 

allowing navigation in all other portions 

of Long Island Sound not covered by 

this rule. Within the regulated area, 

approaching within 100 yards of any 

swimmer would be prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Long Island Sound or designated onscene patrol personnel. Notification of 

the race date and subsequent 

enforcement of the special local 

regulation will be made via marine 

broadcasts and broadcast notice to 

mariners. This rule would be effective 

annually on a date in August to be 

specified in the Federal Register. Any 

violation of the special local regulation 

described herein is punishable by, 

among others, civil and criminal 

penalties, in rem liability against the 

offending vessel, and license sanctions. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This regulation may have 

some impact on the public, but any 

potential impact would be minimized 

for the following reason: Vessels may 

transit in all areas of Long Island Sound, 

other than within 100 yards of event 

participants within the regulated area; 

thus vessel traffic would be allowed to 

pass through the regulated area during 

the event as long as they remained 

outside 100 yards of any swimmer. 

Further, vessels would only have 

minimal increased transit time and the 

special local regulation will only be 

enforced for approximately 11 hours on 

a single specified day each August, 

made publicly known in advance of the 

scheduled event. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
35836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

The Coast Guard certifies that under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule may affect 

the following entities, some of which 

may be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

in those portions of Long Island Sound 

covered by the special local regulation. 

Before the activation of the zone, we 

would issue maritime advisories in 

advance of the event and make them 

widely available to users of the 

waterway. For the reasons outlined in 

the Regulatory Evaluation section above, 

this rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact: MSTC 

Christie Dixon, Prevention Department, 

USCG Sector Long Island Sound at 203– 

468–4459, christie.m.dixon@uscg.mil. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this proposed rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not 

result in such expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed 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 proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves the promulgation of special 

local regulations in conjunction with a 

permitted marine event and falls under 

the category of actions under paragraph 

34(h) of the instruction for which 

further environmental analysis is not 

normally required. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 35837 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Change in Analytic Principles (Proposal 

Two), July 7, 2009 (Petition). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add § 100.125 to read as follows: 

§ 100.125 Swim Across the Sound, Long 

Island Sound, Port Jefferson, NY to 

Captain’s Cove Seaport, Bridgeport, CT. 

(a) Regulated area. All navigable 

waters of Long Island Sound within 100 

yards of the swim event race course 

consisting of the following points: 

Starting Point at Port Jefferson Beach at 

approximate position 40°58′11.71′′ N, 

073°05′51.12′′ W, north-westerly to the 

finishing point at Captain’s Cove 

Seaport at approximate location 

41°09′25.07′′ N, 073°12′47.82′′ W. 

(b) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel, 

means any commissioned, warrant and 

petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard 

operating Coast Guard vessels who have 

been authorized to act on the behalf of 

the Captain of the Port Long Island 

Sound. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) No 

person or vessel may approach or 

remain within 100 yards of any 

swimmer within the regulated area 

during the enforcement period of this 

regulation unless they are officially 

participating in the Swim Across the 

Sound event or are otherwise authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Long Island 

Sound or by Designated On-scene Patrol 

Personnel. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions from the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

Designated On-scene Patrol Personnel. 

The Designated On-scene Patrol 

Personnel may delay, modify, or cancel 

the swim event as conditions or 

circumstances require. 

(3) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of the 

vessel must proceed as directed. 

(4) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter the regulated area within 100 

yards of a swimmer may request 

permission to enter from the designated 

on scene patrol personnel by contacting 

them on VHF–16 or by a request to the 

Captain of the Port Long Island Sound 

via phone at (203) 468–4401. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule is 

enforced annually on a date in August. 

Notification of the specific date and 

enforcement of the special local 

regulation will be made via Notice in 

the Federal Register, marine broadcasts 

and local Notice to Mariners. 

Dated: June 17, 2009. 

Daniel A. Ronan, 

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

Port Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. E9–17244 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3050 

[Docket No. RM2009–7; Order No. 245] 

Periodic Reporting Rules 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

rulemaking petition. 

SUMMARY: Under a new law, the Postal 

Service must file an annual compliance 

report with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission on costs, revenues, rates 

and quality of service associated with its 

products. This document notes that the 

Postal Service has filed a petition for 

consideration of a proposed change in 

analytical methods approved for use in 

periodic reporting. The focus of this 

petition (involving an issue referred to 

as Proposal Two) is on the Postal 

Service’s development of revenue, piece 

and weight estimates for bulk mail 

categories. The Commission has 

established a docket for consideration of 

Proposal Two and has addressed 

preliminary procedural matters, 

including an opportunity for public 

comment. Proposal One is under 

consideration in a pending docket. 

DATES: Deadline for initial comments: 

July 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: File comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6829 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History, 74 FR 31386 (July 

1, 2009). 

On July 7, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a petition to initiate an informal 

rulemaking proceeding to consider a 

change in the analytical methods 

approved for use in periodic reporting.1

The Petition explains that the Postal 

Service’s current practice is to combine 

data from two sources to fashion 

Revenue, Pieces, and Weight (RPW) 

estimates for the various categories of 

bulk mail. It combines census data 

recorded by its PostalOne! system 

(which reflects automated office 

activity) with data found on postage 

statements that are taken from a 

probability sample of non-automated 

offices. It notes that the sample data 

taken from non-automated offices are 

becoming less reliable as the pool of 

non-automated offices shrinks and the 

sample frames for that pool become 

increasingly dated. It also notes that the 

sampling process is more expensive 

than the modeling process that it 

proposes. 

The Postal Service proposes to 

discontinue sampling non-automated 

offices when preparing its RPW 

estimates. In place of the current nonautomated office sample, it proposes to 

take the universe of offices, and stratify 

it according to size. It will then impute 

the incidence of mail characteristics for 

a given product found in automated 

offices in a particular size stratum, as 

reflected in PostalOne! data, to the 

characteristics of products found in 

non-automated offices in the same size 

stratum. The Postal Service calls this its 

‘‘modeling’’ approach. Petition at 1–2. 

The Petition, which is available on 

the Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.prc.gov, includes appendices 

purporting to show the results of testing 

the accuracy of its modeling approach 

in estimating revenue, pieces, and 

weight with respect to all market 

dominant bulk mail categories. The 

Postal Service concludes that the results 

are accurate for all categories except for 

Within County Periodicals. Even with 

respect to Within County Periodicals, it 

asserts that the modeled results are 

more accurate than the current approach 

which employs data gathered from a 

sample of non-automated offices. Id. at 

2 and Attachment at 2. 

The attachment and the appendices to 

the Postal Service’s Petition explain its 

proposal in more detail, including its 

background, objective, rationale, and 

estimated impact. 

It is ordered: 

1. Petition of the United States Postal 

Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Change in Analytic Principles (Proposal 

Two), filed July 7, 2009, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2009–7 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1