Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46007 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. Documents 

mentioned in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking as being available in the 

docket, and all public comments, are in 

our online docket at http://

www.regulations.gov and can be viewed 

by following that Web site’s 

instructions. Additionally, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted or a final rule is 

published. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 

1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 110.4 to by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 110.4 Penobscott Bay, Maine. 

* * * * * 

(d) Passagassawakeag River, Belfast 

Bay, Belfast, Maine.— (1) Special 

anchorage area A. All of the waters 

enclosed by a line beginning at latitude 

44°25′23′′ N., longitude 068°58′55′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 44°25′30′′ N., 

longitude 068°58′48′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 44°25′33′′ N., longitude 

068°59′15′′ W.; thence to latitude 

44°25′39′′ N., longitude 068°59′17′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 44°25′48′′ N., 

longitude 068°59′57′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 44°25′46′′ N., longitude 

069°00′08′′ W.; thence to the point of 

beginning. 

(2) Special anchorage area B. All of 

the waters enclosed by a line beginning 

at latitude 44°25′17′′ N., longitude 

068°59′00′′ W.; thence to latitude 

44°24′56′′ N., longitude 068°59′23′′ W.; 

thence to latitude 44°25′20′′ N., 

longitude 068°59′38′′ W.; thence to 

latitude 44°25′44′′ N., longitude 

069°00′09′′ W.; thence to the point of 

beginning. 

Note to § 110.4(d): All coordinates 

referenced use datum: NAD 83. All anchoring 

in the areas is under the supervision of the 

town of Belfast harbormaster or other such 

authority as may be designated by the 

authorities of the Town of Belfast, Maine. 

Mariners using these special anchorage areas 

are encouraged to contact local and state 

authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to 

ensure compliance with any additional 

applicable state and local laws. 

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

S.D. Poulin, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21231 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2017–0146] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Port Canaveral Harbor, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

expand the geographical boundaries of a 

permanent security zone at Port 

Canaveral Harbor. This action is 

necessary to ensure the security of 

vessels, facilities, and the surrounding 

areas within this zone. This rule is 

intended to prohibit persons and vessels 

from entering, transiting through, 

anchoring in, or remaining within the 

security zone unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville 

or a designated representative. We 

invite your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before November 3, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2017–0146 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone (904) 714–7616, 

email Allan.H.Storm@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive Order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On October 3, 1988, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule creating a 

permanent security zone at Port 

Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46008 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Florida (53 FR 38718) to safeguard the 

waterfront and military assets along the 

U.S. Navy’s Poseidon Wharf inside the 

southeast portion of Port Canaveral 

Harbor’s Middle Basin. This waterfront 

area is located on Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station (CCAFS), a U.S. Air Force 

military installation. Additionally, the 

northern and northeast portion of the 

Middle Basin’s waterfront is located 

almost entirely on CCAFS property, and 

within this area are piers utilized by the 

U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army. CCAFS 

routinely conducts operations critical to 

national security. 

The U.S. Navy requested to amend the 

current regulation in 33 CFR 165.705(b) 

to expand the geographical boundaries 

to include the northern and 

northeastern portion of the Middle 

Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor in order 

to ensure the safety and security of 

military assets and infrastructure along 

the entire CCAFS waterfront. 

The COTP Jacksonville has 

determined it is necessary to expand the 

security zone to ensure the security of 

military assets and waterfront facilities 

from destruction, loss, or injury from 

sabotage or other subversive acts, 

accidents or other causes of a similar 

nature, while still allowing for safe 

navigation within the Middle Basin of 

Port Canaveral Harbor. The proposed 

expanded geographical boundaries 

would encompass the entire CCAFS 

waterfront in the middle basin, with a 

perpendicular boundary distance from 

the shore varying from approximately 

120 feet to 665 feet. The purpose of the 

proposed rule is to ensure the security 

of vessels, facilities, and the 

surrounding areas within the security 

zone. The Coast Guard proposes this 

rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 

1231. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to expand 

the geographical boundaries of the 

current regulated area in 33 CFR 

165.705(b) to include the navigable 

waters of the Port Canaveral Harbor’s 

Middle Basin. The proposed 

amendment would redesignate 

§ 165.705(b) to new § 165.705(a)(2) and 

would read as follows: ‘‘Security Zone 

B. Middle Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, 

at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 

Brevard County, Florida. All waters 

within the following coordinates inside 

the Middle Basin: starting at Point 1 in 

position 28°24′54.49′′ N., 80°36′39.13′′ 

W.; thence south to Point 2 in position 

28°24′53.27′′ N., 80°36′39.15′′ W.; thence 

east to Point 3 in position 28°24′53.25′′ 

N., 80°36′30.41′′ W.; thence south to 

Point 4 in position 28°24′50.51′′ N., 

80°36′30.41′′ W.; thence southeast to 

Point 5 in position 28°24′38.15′′ N., 

80°36′17.18′′ W.; thence east to Point 6 

in position 28°24′38.16′′ N., 80°36′ 

14.92′′ W.; thence northeast to Point 7 in 

position 28°24′39.36′′ N., 80°36′13.37′′ 

W.; thence following the land based 

perimeter boundary to the point of 

origin.’’ 

The proposed rule would also make 

the following amendments: (1) Change 

the title of the existing regulation in 33 

CFR 165.705 from ‘‘Port Canaveral 

Harbor, Cape Canaveral, Florida’’ to 

‘‘Security Zones: Port Canaveral Harbor, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL’’; 

(2) add a new paragraph (c) and change 

the title to ‘‘(c) Regulations’’; (3) 

redesignate existing paragraph (d) as 

new paragraph (c)(1) with minor nonsubstantive changes; (4) redesignate 

existing paragraph (c) as new paragraph 

(c)(2) with minor non-substantive 

changes; (5) and add a new paragraph 

(c)(3), which states: ‘‘Persons desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the security zone may 

request permission from the COTP 

Jacksonville by telephone at 904–714– 

7557, or a designated representative via 

VHF–FM radio on channel 16. If 

authorization is granted, all persons and 

vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the COTP Jacksonville or the designated 

representative.’’ Lastly, we propose to 

add a new paragraph (b), entitled 

‘‘Definitions’’ and propose a new 

definition for the term ‘‘designated 

representative.’’ 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive Orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive Orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying costs and benefits, reducing 

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting 

flexibility. Executive Order 13771 

(Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to 

reduce regulation and control regulatory 

costs and provides that ‘‘for every one 

new regulation issued, at least two prior 

regulations be identified for elimination, 

and that the cost of planned regulations 

be prudently managed and controlled 

through a budgeting process.’’ 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

significant regulatory action under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. 

As this rule is not a significant 

regulatory action, this rule is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. See the OMB 

Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance 

Implementing Section 2 of the Executive 

Order of January 30, 2017 titled 

‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). 

The economic impact of this proposed 

rule is not significant. Although persons 

and vessels may not enter, transit 

through, anchor it, or remain within the 

security zone without authorization 

from the COTP Jacksonville or a 

designated representative, they may 

operate in the navigable water adjacent 

to the proposed security zone and the 

Federal channel. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. 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 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. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the security 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section IV.A above this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic 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. 

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. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46009 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 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. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 

a substantial direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in E.O. 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under E.O. 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. If you 

believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, the Coast Guard 

discusses the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. 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 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. The proposed rule 

involves expanding the geographical 

boundaries of a permanent security zone 

that will prohibit entry within certain 

navigable waters of the Port Canaveral 

Harbor’s Middle Basin. 

Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration (REC) 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

Public participation is essential to 

effective rulemaking, and the Coast 

Guard will consider all comments and 

related materials received during the 

comment period. Your comment can 

help shape the outcome of this 

rulemaking. If you submit a comment, 

please include the docket number for 

this rulemaking, indicate the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 165.705 to read as follows: 

§ 165.705: Security Zones: Port Canaveral 

Harbor, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 

FL. 

(a) Regulated areas. 

(1) Security Zone A. East (Trident) 

Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard 

County, Florida. All waters of the East 

Basin north of latitude 28°24′36′′ N. 

(2) Security Zone B. Middle Basin, 

Port Canaveral Harbor, at Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard 

County, Florida. All waters within the 

following coordinates inside the Middle 

Basin: Starting at Point 1 in position 

28°24′54.49′′ N., 80°36′39.13′′ W.; thence 

south to Point 2 in position 28°24′53.27′′ 

N., 80°36′39.15′′ W.; thence east to Point 

3 in position 28°24′53.25′′ N., 

80°36′30.41′′ W.; thence south to Point 

4 in position 28°24′50.51′′ N., 

80°36′30.41′′ W.; thence southeast to 

Point 5 in position 28°24′38.15′′ N., 

80°36′17.18′′ W.; thence east to Point 6 

in position 28°24′38.16′′ N., 

80°36′14.92′′ W.; thence northeast to 

Point 7 in position 28°24′39.36′′ N., 

80°36′13.37′′ W.; thence following the 

land based perimeter boundary to the 

point of origin. These coordinates are 

based on North American Datum 1983. 

(b) Definitions. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means personnel 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46010 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) Jacksonville in the 

enforcement of the security zone. This 

includes Coast Guard Patrol 

Commanders, Coast Guard coxswains, 

petty officers, and other officers 

operating Coast Guard vessels and 

federal, state, and local law officers 

designated by or assisting the COTP 

Jacksonville in the enforcement of 

regulated navigation areas and security 

zones. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) The general regulations governing 

security zones found in 33 CFR 165.33 

apply to the security zones described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the security zone unless 

authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or 

a designated representative. 

(3) Persons desiring to enter, transit 

through, anchor in, or remain within the 

security zone may request permission 

from the COTP Jacksonville by 

telephone at 904–714–7557, or a 

designated representative via VHF–FM 

radio on channel 16. If authorization is 

granted, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP Jacksonville or the designated 

representative. 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

T.C. Wiemers, 

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

Port Jacksonville. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21230 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Overweight Parcels 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

contemplating amendment of the 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM®), to address the challenges 

presented by overweight parcels that 

make their way into the postal network. 

To aid us in this effort, we are 

requesting comments from the postal 

community regarding a variety of 

suggested actions to resolve or 

ameliorate this problem. Overweight 

parcels for the purpose of this notice are 

defined as anything in excess of 70 

pounds or the maximum weight allowed 

for HAZMAT. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 2, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the manager, Product 

Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, 

Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending 

comments by email, include the name 

and address of the commenter and send 

to ProductClassification@usps.gov, with 

a subject line of ‘‘Overweight Parcels.’’ 

Faxed comments are not accepted. 

You may inspect and photocopy all 

written comments, by appointment 

only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor 

North, Washington, DC 20260. These 

records are available for review on 

Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–4 p.m., 

by calling 202–268–2906. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct questions or comments to Lizbeth 

J. Dobbins by email at lizbeth.j.dobbins@

usps.gov or phone (202) 268–3789. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Challenge of Overweight Parcels 

Overweight parcels should never be 

accepted for delivery into the postal 

network. On occasion an item, such as 

a returns parcel, gets into the Postal 

network and arrives at a destination 

plant or post office. It is unsafe to return 

the item back through the postal 

network so the receiving office contacts 

the customer and asks the customer to 

pick up the package. Sometimes the 

package is abandoned which creates 

another safety issue trying to dispose of 

the overweight item. 

Part of the challenge is that we do not 

want overweight items at any time since 

these items cause numerous safety 

issues and we strongly discourage 

mailers from entering them into the 

postal system. We do not accept them at 

postal retail counters either and yet, 

these items still get into the postal 

system. 

In order to discourage unsafe 

practices, the Postal Service is seeking 

input from the mailing community 

about how to prevent overweight 

packages from entering the postal 

system, and if they get into the postal 

system, the appropriate postage to be 

paid. The maximum weight for postage 

payment is 70 pounds. 

Suggested Remedies 

One partial remedy would be to assess 

additional postage on overweight 

parcels discovered in the postal 

network. Thus, if a package weight is 75 

pounds, and it arrives at the destination 

office, with postage calculated at 70 

pounds, an additional 5 pounds worth 

of postage could be collected (70 plus 

5). Or if the item is 80 pounds, postage 

would be collected on the additional 10 

pounds. This would appear to provide 

the Postal Service with at least some 

degree of reimbursement for the extra 

service provided. 

As a further deterrent, another 

possibility would be to charge not only 

additional postage, but an additional 

penalty fee (perhaps $20.00). Thus, for 

an 80 pound parcel the total amount 

due would include the postage payment 

for 70 pounds, a postage surcharge for 

the additional 10 pounds and a $20 

penalty. 

Since HAZMAT parcels have lower 

maximum weight limits, and overweight 

HAZMAT parcels may pose additional 

safety challenges, it would seem 

appropriate to provide an additional 

element of deterrence with regard to the 

mailing of such items. Thus, for 

example, if a 65-pound HAZMAT 

package exceeded the maximum weight 

limit of 25 pounds, the amount due 

might include not only the postage on 

the actual weight of the package, but an 

additional surcharge of $20.00 for each 

10 pounds (or fraction thereof) in excess 

of the applicable weight limit. 

We look forward to feedback on this 

important safety issue. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21150 Filed 10–2–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396; FRL–9968–53– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; 2011 Base Year Inventory 

for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, as a 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision, the 2011 base year inventory 

for the Baltimore, Maryland moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) submitted by the 

State of Maryland through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE). 

In the Final Rules section of this issue 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS