[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69781-69786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Postal 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comments on the proposed rules, McGraw-Hill and Valpak expressed
[[Page 69782]]
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 post-implementation review would be
inadequate to remedy potential abuse of the subpart E procedures.
McGraw-Hill Comments at 4; Valpak Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 69783]]
changes that rise above the level of corrections to the MCS. Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 co-palletized 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Docket No. MC2011-5, Order Approving Mail
Classification Changes, February 8, 2011 (Order No. 667).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Docket No. MC2012-8, Order Approving Mail Classification
Change, February 10, 2012 (Order No. 1225).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 39 CFR 3020.30, 39 CFR 3020.50, and 39 CFR 3020.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mail Classification Schedule 1550.1(a).
\17\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 69784]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 39 CFR 3020.30.34, 39 CFR 3020.55, and 39 CFR 3020.75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Corrections to Product Descriptions
The proposed rules modify the existing rules governing corrections
to MCS product descriptions, which are codified at Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
0
1. The authority citation of part 3020 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.
0
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
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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
[[Page 69786]]
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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. Sec. 3020.84-3020.89 [Reserved]
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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