Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 11529 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland, 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing a document in this 

manner are responsible for serving the 

document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in 

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 

expedited delivery service upon 

depositing the document with the 

provider of the service. A presiding 

officer, having granted an exemption 

request from using E–Filing, may 

require a participant or party to use E– 

Filing if the presiding officer 

subsequently determines that the reason 

for granting the exemption from use of 

E–Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket, which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

If a person other than Dr. Kao requests 

a hearing, that person shall set forth 

with particularity the manner in which 

his/her interest is adversely affected by 

this Order and shall address the criteria 

set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). 

If a hearing is requested by a licensee 

or a person whose interest is adversely 

affected, the Commission will issue an 

Order designating the time and place of 

any hearings. If a hearing is held, the 

issue to be considered at such hearing 

shall be whether this Order should be 

sustained. In the absence of any request 

for hearing, or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions specified in 

Section IV above shall be final 20 days 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register without further 

order or proceedings. If an extension of 

time for requesting a hearing has been 

approved, the provisions specified in 

Section IV shall be final when the 

extension expires if a hearing request 

has not been received. 

Dated this 23rd day of February 2011. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4680 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0047; IA–10–010] 

Gregory Desobry, Ph.D.; Order 

Requiring Notification of Involvement 

in NRC-Licensed Activities 

I 

Mr. Gregory Desobry previously 

performed duties as a medical physicist 

at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania (PVAMC). The 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

holds a Master Materials License (MML) 

Number 03–23853–01VA issued by the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) part 30. The PVAMC is a 

medical broad scope permittee which 

was authorized by the MML to use a 

variety of byproduct materials for 

diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. 

The therapeutic treatments included 

brachytherapy iodine-125 used for 

permanent prostate implants. Mr. 

Desobry’s role included assuring the 

safe use of radioactive materials for 

patients, including performance of a 

post-treatment determination of the 

actual radiation treatment administered 

to the patient in order that the actual 

treatment parameters could be verified 

with the intended treatment identified 

in the written directive. Mr. Desobry 

was involved with the vast majority of 

the permanent prostate implants under 

the permit. 

II 

On May 16, 2008, the NRC received 

information that on May 5, 2008, a 

potential medical event (as defined in 

10 CFR 35.3045) occurred at the 

PVAMC; this event report was followed 

by numerous others. By October 2009, 

the VA had reported to the NRC that 97 

medical events involving prostate 

brachytherapy occurred at the PVAMC 

from February 2002 through June 2008. 

In addition, during the period from 

December 2006 through November 

2007, post-treatment dose verification 

was not performed for at least 16 

patients due to computer system 

interface problems. Even after the 

computer interface problems were 

resolved, post-treatment plans were not 

completed for seven patients until 

December 2007. 

In response to the reported medical 

events, the VA National Health Physics 

Program (NHPP) conducted onsite 

inspections at the PVAMC on May 28 

through 29, 2008, and from June 24 

through 25, 2008, and issued an 

inspection report with violations of NRC 

requirements, dated October 16, 2008. 

The NHPP concluded that, for medical 

events occurring between February 25, 

2002, and May 5, 2008, Mr. Desobry was 

aware of the D90 doses (the minimum 

dose received by 90 percent of the 

prostate volume) and, in some cases, of 

the seeds being implanted outside the 

prostate. However, Mr. Desobry did not 

report these circumstances to the RSO to 

evaluate as possible medical events. The 

NRC considered this a missed 

opportunity to correct the issue, 

allowing further medical events to 

occur. The NHPP also concluded that 

Mr. Desobry had adequate clinical and 

technical knowledge of the patient 

circumstances surrounding the medical 

events. Finally, the NHPP concluded 

that the lack of evaluations by Mr. 

Desobry and his failure to raise this 

issue to higher-level management was 

contrary to patient safety and 

demonstrated a lack of a safety 

conscious work environment. 

The NRC also responded to the 

medical events being reported by 

conducting onsite inspections at the 

PVAMC on various dates from July 23, 

2008, to October 16, 2009. The results 

of the NRC inspections were 

documented in NRC Special Inspection 

Report No. 030–34325/2008– 

029(DNMS), dated March 30, 2009, and 

NRC Reactive Inspection Report No. 

030–34325/2009–001(DNMS), dated 

November 17, 2009. The NRC 

determined that Mr. Desobry was the 

primary medical physicist at the 

PVAMC for brachytherapy implants and 

participated in the majority of 

treatments that subsequently resulted in 

reported medical events. Also, Mr. 

Desobry was the primary medical 

physicist during the period when post 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 

treatment dose verifications were not 

performed due to computer interface 

problems. The NRC inspection reports 

documented eight apparent violations of 

NRC requirements and noted that the 

VA’s internal Administrative Board of 

Investigation concluded that there was a 

lack of a safety culture at the PVAMC 

where Mr. Desobry, among others, 

accepted a substandard approach to 

brachytherapy treatments, which 

resulted in poor implant techniques, a 

patient dose assessment process that 

lacked rigor and formality, a failure to 

communicate concerns with the 

implants, a misperception that safety 

checks were performed by other team 

members, and an overall system that did 

not demonstrate a commitment to 

safety. 

The NRC discussed these violations 

with the VA in a Predecisional 

Enforcement Conference conducted on 

December 17, 2009. In a letter dated 

January 14, 2010, the VA accepted the 

violations, including the root or basic 

causes identified by the VA and the 

NRC. 

On March 17, 2010, the NRC issued 

a Notice of Violation with a $227,500 

proposed civil penalty to the VA. The 

Notice of Violation included two 

Severity Level II violations and three 

Severity Level III violations assessed a 

civil penalty; and one Severity Level II 

violation and two Severity Level IV 

violations not assessed a civil penalty. 

The VA provided the NRC with its 

response to the Notice of Violation and 

proposed civil penalty, dated April 8, 

2010, and forwarded payment of the 

civil penalty provided in a follow-up 

letter, dated April 13, 2010. 

During interviews conducted by the 

NRC’s Office of Investigations (OI), Mr. 

Desobry acknowledged being involved 

in over 90 percent of the brachytherapy 

procedures conducted at the PVAMC. 

Mr. Desobry also informed the NRC OI 

that he had never received training as to 

what constituted a medical event and 

was unaware of the reporting 

requirements of a medical event. 

Notwithstanding Mr. Desobry’s 

training as a Medical Physicist, with 

board certification by the American 

Board of Radiology in 1989 and 

subsequent practice in the field of 

Medical Physics, Mr. Desobry’s actions 

at the PVAMC, as they contributed to 

these medical events, called into 

question whether Mr. Desobry would 

work to assure that radioactive materials 

are used safely for patients, adequately 

understands the applicable NRC 

regulations, and would perform future 

activities in accordance with applicable 

NRC requirements and the Atomic 

Energy Act. 

Therefore, on May 24, 2010, the NRC 

issued a Demand for Information (DFI) 

to Mr. Desobry. This DFI required Mr. 

Desobry to provide information about 

actions he had taken, or planned to take, 

to ensure that Mr. Desobry fully 

understood: (1) The 10 CFR part 35 

definition of a medical event; and (2) his 

role and responsibilities pertaining to 

his duties as a medical physicist and the 

steps necessary to identify and report 

medical events to the NRC. The NRC 

further required information about the 

names and locations of the facilities 

where Mr. Desobry worked as a medical 

physicist. Finally, the NRC required 

information about any other additional 

actions not already mentioned that 

would provide the NRC with reasonable 

assurance about Mr. Desobry’s 

involvement in NRC-licensed activities. 

Mr. Desobry responded to the DFI on 

June 28, 2010. His reply indicated that 

he was not currently employed as a 

medical physicist, but had been 

employed at the Capital Health 

System—Mercer Campus, in Trenton, 

New Jersey, from January 2008 until 

December 2009; Capital Health System 

was affiliated with the University of 

Pennsylvania Health System during that 

time frame. Mr. Desobry indicated that 

while at Capital Health System under 

the supervision of the Head of the 

Department of Radiation Oncology, he 

worked with the Radiation Safety 

Officer and with radiation oncology 

physicians to examine that institution’s 

definition of a medical event, which Mr. 

Desobry indicated reinforced his 

understanding (and corrected any prior 

misunderstanding) of the 10 CFR part 35 

definition of a medical event; his role 

and responsibility regarding medical 

events; and the steps needed to be taken 

to identify and report medical events to 

the NRC. Mr. Desobry indicated that he 

was dedicated to regulatory compliance 

and patient safety and stated that, in the 

event that he should ever be hired to 

work again as a medical physicist, he 

would request training in this area at an 

appropriate and accredited institution. 

III 

Based on Mr. Desobry’s response to 

the May 24, 2010, DFI, the NRC 

recognizes that Mr. Desobry has taken 

steps to improve his understanding of 

how to safely use radioactive material in 

treatment of patients. Mr. Desobry 

worked with the Radiation Safety 

Officer and with radiation oncology 

physicians at the Capital Health System 

facility to correct and reinforce Mr. 

Desobry’s understanding of the 10 CFR 

part 35 definition of a medical event, his 

role and responsibility regarding 

medical events, and the steps needed to 

be taken to identify and report medical 

events to the NRC. However, since Mr. 

Desobry was involved in a large number 

of reported medical events at PVAMC, 

the NRC has concluded that it needs the 

opportunity to inspect Mr. Desobry’s 

involvement in future similar NRClicensed activities to assess the efficacy 

of Mr. Desobry’s actions to improve his 

understanding of the 10 CFR part 35 

definition of a medical event, his role 

and responsibility regarding medical 

events, and the steps needed to be taken 

to identify and report medical events to 

the NRC, in the event that he accepts a 

position as a medical physicist in the 

future. This action will provide NRC the 

opportunity to confirm that reasonable 

assurance exists that licensed activities 

can be conducted in compliance with 

the Commission’s requirements and that 

the health and safety of the public will 

be protected. 

Therefore, the public health, safety 

and interest require that Mr. Desobry 

notify the NRC within 20 days of 

accepting a position as a medical 

physicist. 

IV 

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 

161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and the Commission’s regulations in 10 

CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR 150.20, it is 

hereby ordered that: 

1. If Mr. Desobry accepts, or has 

accepted since the time of his response 

to the DFI, dated May 24, 2010, a 

medical physicist position involving the 

use of byproduct materials in either 

NRC jurisdiction or in an Agreement 

State, he shall inform the NRC within 20 

days of acceptance of an employment 

offer or within 20 days of this Order, 

whichever comes later. This notification 

is a one-time requirement and no further 

notification is required for any 

subsequent acceptance of an 

employment offer. This notification 

shall be provided to the Director, Office 

of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, with a copy to the Regional 

Administrator, Region III, 2443 

Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532. The 

notification shall include the name, 

address, and telephone number of the 

employer or the entity where he is or 

will be employed as a medical physicist. 

2. This Order shall be effective 20 

days following its publication in the 

Federal Register and shall remain in 

effect until the conditions of Item 1 have 

been met. 

The Director, OE, may, in writing, 

relax or rescind any of the above 

conditions upon demonstration by Mr. 

Desobry of good cause. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 11531 

V 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. 

Gregory Desobry must, and any other 

person adversely affected by this Order 

may, submit an answer to this Order 

within 20 days of its publication in the 

Federal Register. Mr. Desobry’s answer 

must be submitted under oath and 

affirmation. In addition, Mr. Desobry 

and any other person adversely affected 

by this Order may request a hearing on 

this Order within 20 days of its 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Where good cause is shown, 

consideration will be given to extending 

the time to answer or request a hearing. 

A request for extension of time must be 

directed to the Director, Office of 

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and include a statement of 

good cause for the extension. 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing, a petition for leave 

to intervene, any motion or other 

document filed in the proceeding prior 

to the submission of a request for 

hearing or petition to intervene, and 

documents filed by interested 

governmental entities participating 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule 

(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the Internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. To comply with the 

procedural requirements of E-Filing, at 

least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, 

the participant should contact the Office 

of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a 

digital ID certificate, which allows the 

participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E–Submittal 

server for any proceeding in which it is 

participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a request or petition for 

hearing (even in instances in which the 

participant, or its counsel or 

representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon 

this information, the Secretary will 

establish an electronic docket for the 

hearing in this proceeding if the 

Secretary has not already established an 

electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on 

NRC’s public Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

apply-certificates.html. System 

requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s 

‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ 

which is available on the agency’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 

may attempt to use other software not 

listed on the Web site, but should note 

that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not 

support unlisted software, and the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk will not be able 

to offer assistance in using unlisted 

software. 

If a participant is electronically 

submitting a document to the NRC in 

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the 

participant must file the document 

using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. In order to serve 

documents through the Electronic 

Information Exchange (EIE), users will 

be required to install a Web browser 

plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based 

submission form, including the 

installation of the Web browser plug-in, 

is available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a 

digital ID certificate and a docket has 

been created, the participant can then 

submit a request for hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene. Submissions 

should be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the documents are 

submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing 

system. To be timely, an electronic 

filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 

system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 

a transmission, the E-Filing system 

time-stamps the document and sends 

the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a hearing request/ 

petition to intervene is filed so that they 

can obtain access to the document via 

the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing 

system may seek assistance by 

contacting the NRC Meta System Help 

Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link 

located on the NRC Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC 

Meta System Help Desk is available 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket, which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission, 

or the presiding officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service Filing 

of a Functionally Equivalent International Business 

Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Negotiated 

Service Agreement, February 18, 2011 (Notice). 

2The Commission finds that an extension of the 

current contract is necessary to permit sufficient 

time for regulatory review of the instant contract. 

By this Order, the Commission extends the current 

agreement until March 31, 2011. 

3The Postal Service will notify the mailer of the 

effective date within 30 days of receiving all 

necessary regulatory approvals. The contract will 

remain in effect for 1 year unless terminated earlier 

by either party. Id. Attachment 1 at 4. 

4See Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011–59, 

Request of the United States Postal Service to Add 

International Business Reply Service Competitive 

Contract 3 to the Competitive Products List and 

Notice of Filing of Contract (Under Seal), February 

11, 2011. 

5The Postal Service Notice assumes the existence 

of the IBRS Competitive Contract 3 product. The 

Commission will review the instant contract in light 

of its final order in Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and 

CP2011–59. 

If a person other than Mr. Desobry, 

Ph.D., requests a hearing, that person 

shall set forth with particularity the 

manner in which his/her interest is 

adversely affected by this Order and 

shall address the criteria set forth in 10 

CFR 2.309(d). 

If a hearing is requested by a licensee 

or a person whose interest is adversely 

affected, the Commission will issue an 

Order designating the time and place of 

any hearings. If a hearing is held, the 

issue to be considered at such hearing 

shall be whether this Order should be 

sustained. In the absence of any request 

for hearing, or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions specified in 

Section IV above shall be final 20 days 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register without further 

order or proceedings. If an extension of 

time for requesting a hearing has been 

approved, the provisions specified in 

Section IV shall be final when the 

extension expires if a hearing request 

has not been received. 

Dated this 23rd day of February 2011. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4682 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2011–61; Order No. 680] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

an additional International Business 

Reply Service (IBRS) Competitive 

Contract 3. It identifies preliminary 

procedural steps and invites public 

comment. It also grants an extension of 

the current contract. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 3, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On February 18, 2011, the Postal 

Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 

CFR 3015.5, that it has entered into an 

additional International Business Reply 

Service (IBRS) Competitive contract.1

The instant contract is the successor of 

the IBRS Competitive contract which is 

the subject of Docket No. CP2010–22, 

which is scheduled to expire on 

February 28, 2011.2 Id. at 3. The Postal 

Service requests that the instant contract 

be included within the IBRS 

Competitive Contract 3 product. Id. at 

6.3

In Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and 

CP2011–59, the Postal Service requested 

that the Commission add IBRS 

Competitive Contract 3 to the 

competitive product list, and that the 

contract filed in Docket No. CP2011–59 

serve as the baseline contract for future 

functional equivalence analyses of the 

IBRS Competitive Contract 3 product.4

Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011– 

59 remain pending before the 

Commission.5

In support of its Notice, the Postal 

Service filed the following attachments: 

• Attachment 1—a redacted copy of 

the contract; 

• Attachment 2—a redacted copy of 

the certified statement required by 39 

CFR 3015.5(c)(2); 

• Attachment 3—Governors’ Decision 

No. 08–24, which establishes prices and 

classifications for the IBRS Contracts 

product, and includes Mail 

Classification Schedule language for 

IBRS contracts, formulas for pricing 

along with an analysis, certification of 

the Governors vote, and certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and 

• Attachment 4—an application for 

non-public treatment of materials to 

maintain the redacted portions of the 

contract, customer identifying 

information and related financial 

information under seal. 

Functional equivalence. The Postal 

Service asserts that the instant contract 

is functionally equivalent to the IBRS 

contracts previously filed. Notice at 4. It 

also asserts that the ‘‘functional terms’’ 

of the instant contract and the 

‘‘functional terms’’ of the proposed 

baseline IBRS 3 Competitive Contract 

‘‘are the same, although other terms that 

do not directly change the nature of the 

agreements’ basic obligations may vary.’’ 

Id. To that end, the Postal Service 

indicates that prices under IBRS 

contracts may differ based on volume or 

postage commitments and when the 

agreement is signed. It identifies certain 

customer-specific information that 

distinguishes the instant contract from 

the proposed baseline agreement. Id. at 

5. 

The Postal Service concludes that the 

instant contract complies with 39 U.S.C. 

3633 and is functionally equivalent to 

the proposed IBRS Competitive Contract 

3 baseline agreement in Docket Nos. 

MC2011–21 and CP2011–59. Id. at 6. It 

submits that the instant contract ‘‘should 

be added to the proposed IBRS 3 

product grouping.’’ Id. at 4. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2011–61 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Postal Service’s 

Notice. 

The Commission appoints William C. 

Miller to serve as Public Representative 

in this docket. 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s filings in the captioned docket 

are consistent with the policies of 39 

U.S.C. 3632, 3633 or 39 CFR part 3015. 

Comments are due no later than March 

3, 2011. The public portions of this 

filing can be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov). 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2011–61 for consideration of the 

matters raised in this docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, William 

C. Miller is appointed to serve as officer 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES