Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Notices 81527 

Cylinders will be downsized to 

eliminate void space prior to packaging 

for shipment offsite for disposal. While 

emptied and cleaned, the UF6 Cylinders 

are still internally contaminated with 

SNM. 

The UF6 Cylinders will be transported 

to the USEI site by trucks, separate from 

the aggregated waste shipments 

described above. 

III. Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17 and 10 CFR 

30.11, the Commission may, upon 

application of any interested person or 

upon its own initiative, grant such 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR part 70 and part 30 respectively, as 

it determines are authorized by law and 

will not endanger life or property or the 

common defense and security and are 

otherwise in the public interest. 

The Exemption Is Authorized by Law 

The proposal provides that the 

material described above would be 

transported in compliance with U.S. 

Department of Transportation 

regulations to USEI in Idaho, which is 

a Subtitle C RCRA hazardous waste 

disposal facility permitted by the State 

of Idaho. As such, the material will be 

removed per State and local regulations, 

will be shipped per existing Federal 

regulations to a location approved by 

the State of Idaho to receive the 

material, and such disposal is not 

otherwise contrary to NRC 

requirements, and is therefore 

authorized by law. 

The Exemption Will Not Endanger Life, 

Property and Is Consistent With the 

Common Defense and Security 

NRC staff reviewed the information 

provided by WEC to support their 10 

CFR 20.2002 alternate disposal request 

and for the specific exemptions from 10 

CFR 30.3 and 10 CFR 70.3 and 

associated license amendment in order 

to dispose of aggregated waste and UF6

Cylinders at USEI. As documented in 

the Safety Evaluation Report, the NRC 

staff concludes that, consistent with 10 

CFR 20.2002, WEC provided an 

adequate description of the materials 

and the proposed manner and 

conditions of waste disposal. The NRC 

staff also concluded that the use of the 

site-specific dose assessment 

methodology to evaluate the projected 

doses associated with the transportation 

and disposal of the waste streams at 

USEI are acceptable. The NRC staff 

reviewed the input parameters included 

in this modeling and found that they are 

appropriate for the scenarios 

considered. The NRC staff also 

evaluated the potential doses associated 

with transportation, waste handling, 

and disposal and found that the 

projected doses have been appropriately 

estimated and are demonstrated to meet 

the NRC’s alternate disposal standard of 

contributing a dose of not more than ‘‘a 

few millirem per year’’ to any member 

of the public and are as low as is 

reasonably achievable. The NRC staff 

also concluded that the projected doses 

from the post-closure and intruder 

scenarios at USEI are also within ‘‘a few 

millirem per year’’ over a period of 

1,000 years. Lastly, because of the 

presence of SNM, the NRC evaluated 

potential criticality in its SER, and 

found no concerns. Therefore, the NRC 

concludes that issuance of the 

exemption is will not endanger life, 

property, and is consistent with the 

common defense and security. 

The Exemption Is in the Public Interest 

Issuance of the exemptions to WEC 

and USEI is in the public interest 

because it would provide for the 

efficient and safe disposal for the 

subject waste material, would facilitate 

the decommissioning of the East Lagoon 

at the CFFF site consistent with the 

consent agreement between CFFF and 

SCDHEC, and would conserve low-level 

radioactive waste disposal capacity at 

licensed low-level radioactive disposal 

sites, while ensuring that the material 

being considered is disposed of safely in 

a regulated facility. Therefore, based 

upon the evaluation above, an 

exemption is appropriate pursuant to 10 

CFR 30.11 and 10 CFR 70.17. 

IV. Environmental Considerations 

As required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

performed an environmental assessment 

(EA) that analyzes the environmental 

impacts of the proposed exemption in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

NRC implementing regulations in 10 

CFR part 51. Based on that EA, the NRC 

staff has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed exemption and has issued a 

finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). The EA and FONSI were 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 9, 2020 (85 FR 79228). 

V. Conclusions 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

70.17 and 10 CFR 30.11, the exemptions 

for WEC and USEI and associated WEC 

license amendment are authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security, and is in the public 

interest. Therefore, the Commission 

hereby grants WEC and USEI 

exemptions from 10 CFR 70.3 and 10 

CFR 30.3 to allow WEC to transfer the 

specifically identified byproduct 

material and SNM waste described 

above from the WEC CFFF for disposal 

at the USEI disposal facility located near 

Grand View, Idaho, and issues WEC a 

conforming license amendment. 

Dated: December 10, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Damaris Marcano, 

Acting Chief, Fuel Facility Licensing Branch, 

Division of Fuel Management, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27608 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. PI2021–1; Order No. 5777] 

Public Inquiry 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is revisiting 

the methodology it uses to estimate the 

value of the Postal Service’s universal 

service obligation (USO), which the 

Commission last considered in 2008. 

This document informs the public of 

this proceeding and the technical 

conference, invites public comment, 

and takes other administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 15, 

2021. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Discussion 

IV. Comments 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

In this docket, the Commission 

intends to revisit the methodology it 

uses to estimate the cost of the Postal 

Service’s universal service obligation 

(USO), which the Commission last 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
81528 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Notices 

1See Report on Universal Postal Service and the 

Postal Monopoly, December 19, 2008 (2008 USO 

Report). 

2See 39 U.S.C. 3651(b); see, e.g., Postal 

Regulatory Commission, FY 2019 Annual Report to 

the President and Congress, January 21, 2020, at 41– 

51 (FY 2019 Annual Report). The most recent 

estimate of the USO’s cost was $5.21 billion. See 

FY 2019 Annual Report at 42, Table IV–1. 

3 Docket No. PI2014–1, Order Interpreting 39 

U.S.C. 3651(b)(1)(C), November 17, 2015, at 24 

(Order No. 2820). 

4One notable exception is that the methodology 

for estimating the cost of 6-day delivery reflects 

refined and more comprehensive costs based on the 

Commission’s findings in its Advisory Opinion on 

Elimination of Saturday Delivery. See Docket No. 

N2010–1, Advisory Opinion on Elimination of 

Saturday Delivery, March 24, 2011; Postal 

Regulatory Commission, FY 2011 Annual Report to 

the President and Congress, December 21, 2011, at 

41 (FY 2011 Annual Report). 

considered in 2008.1 In particular, the 

Commission seeks to determine whether 

all of the assumptions underlying that 

methodology remain valid in light of 

changed conditions over the intervening 

twelve years. To that end, the 

Commission seeks public comment with 

respect to the current USO valuation 

methodology, including any suggested 

modifications or enhancements. 

II. Background 

Section 702 of the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(PAEA), Public Law 109–435, 120 Stat. 

3198 (2006), required the Commission 

to submit a report to the president and 

Congress on ‘‘universal postal service 

and the postal monopoly in the United 

States. . . .’’ This report was required 

to include ‘‘a comprehensive review of 

the history and development of 

universal service . . .,’’ as well as ‘‘the 

scope and standards of universal service 

. . . provided under current law . . .’’ 

PAEA, Pulic Law 109–435, 702(a)(2), 

120 Stat. 3198 (2006). The Commission 

released the report on December 19, 

2008. See 2008 USO Report. The 

Commission found that the USO 

consisted of seven different attributes: 

Geographic scope; product range; 

access; delivery; pricing; service quality; 

and an enforcement mechanism. Id. at 

18–33. 

In completing the report, the 

Commission was also required to 

estimate the costs of the USO. Id. at 101. 

Generally speaking, these costs are 

calculated as the difference between the 

amount of profit the Postal Service earns 

while fulfilling its USO and the amount 

of profit the Postal Service could 

theoretically earn if it were not required 

to provide universal service, or any 

specific component thereof. Id. at 101– 

102. The Commission identified various 

USO elements based on statutory 

requirements or on what Congress might 

be expected to include if it were to 

specifically define a postal USO. For 

each element, the Commission 

determined what level of service a 

theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO would provide. 

Id. at 119–143. The difference in profit 

between the former and the latter can be 

thought of as the cost of providing 

universal service. Id. 

The Commission updates its estimate 

of the cost of the USO each year in its 

Annual Report to the President and 

Congress based on the methodological 

approach adopted in the 2008 USO 

Report.2 That methodological approach 

is dependent on assumptions 

concerning what a profit-maximizing 

Postal Service would do absent a 

particular USO mandate. 2008 USO 

Report at 121. Such assumptions are 

necessarily based on economic, 

technological, legislative, and societal 

considerations at the time they are 

made. The assumptions underlying the 

2008 USO Report were thoroughly 

debated at that time, with contractors 

retained by both the Commission and 

the Postal Service presenting differing 

assumptions and the Commission 

ultimately exercising its judgment as to 

which assumptions it found to be the 

most reasonable. Id. at 119–143. 

In Docket No. PI2014–1, the 

Commission interpreted ‘‘other public 

services or activities’’ under 39 U.S.C. 

3651(b)(1)(C) to include statutorilyrequired offerings and ‘‘public facing’’ 

actions by the Postal Service.3 Applying 

the framework developed in that docket, 

the Commission in the FY 2019 Annual 

Report clarified its interpretation of the 

scope of the USO, determining that it 

should include the net cost of the Postal 

Inspection Service. FY 2019 Annual 

Report at 49. The methodologies used to 

estimate the cost of all other elements of 

the USO have remained essentially 

unchanged from the 2008 USO Report.4

Much has changed in the United 

States since 2008—economically, 

technologically, and societally. 

Consequently, revisiting the 

assumptions underlying the 2008 USO 

Report is appropriate in order to ensure 

that the Commission’s valuation of the 

USO continues to reflect the 

environment in which the Postal 

Service operates. 

III. Discussion 

The Commission invites comment 

with respect to any and all aspects of 

the current USO valuation methodology. 

The Commission has also identified two 

USO components in particular with 

valuation assumptions that appear to be 

ripe for revisiting—frequency of 

delivery and maintaining small post 

offices. It is important to note that the 

Commission is not proposing or 

recommending changes to these or any 

other USO components at this time. 

Rather, the Commission is seeking input 

into whether the level of service that a 

theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO would provide 

has changed since 2008. This is 

necessary in order to place an accurate 

value on the cost of the USO, and to 

evaluate that cost through a transparent 

process. 

A. Frequency of Delivery 

In the 2008 USO Report, the 

Commission noted that in every year 

since 1984 Congress has inserted 

language into postal appropriation 

legislation requiring that 6-day delivery 

shall continue ‘‘at the 1983 level.’’ 2008 

USO Report at 20, 22, 29, 123. The 

insertion of this language into 

appropriation legislation has continued 

since 2008, and thus 6-day delivery 

continues to constitute the current USO 

requirement for frequency of delivery. 

In terms of valuing this USO 

component, the Commission sought in 

the 2008 USO Report to determine what 

the minimum frequency of delivery 

would be for a theoretical profitmaximizing Postal Service without a 

USO. Id. at 123–131. The Commission 

considered assumptions by the two 

separate contractors. The contractor 

hired by the Commission concluded 

that the minimum frequency of delivery 

would be 3 days per week. Id. at 124. 

The contractor hired by the Postal 

Service concluded that the Postal 

Service would theoretically maximize 

profits by varying frequency of delivery 

to equalize volume across 3-digit ZIP 

Codes, or potentially even 5-Digit ZIP 

Codes or mail routes. Id. at 131. The two 

contractors reached different 

conclusions with regard to what the cost 

savings associated with reducing 

delivery frequency would be. Id. at 124– 

131. 

The Commission determined that the 

minimum frequency of delivery for a 

theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO would be 5 days 

per week. Id. at 123. It based this 

conclusion on the fact that ‘‘frequency 

of delivery is generally a priority for 

businesses,’’ and ‘‘bills, remittances, 

and date-specific advertising remain 

major sources of revenue.’’ Id. (footnote 

omitted). The Commission found that 

‘‘[w]ithout at least 5-day delivery, it 

would be difficult for the mail to remain 

an attractive channel for 

communications of this kind.’’ Id. This 

conclusion did not make any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Notices 81529 

5See United States Postal Service, The U.S. Postal 

Service Five-Year Strategic Plan FY2020–FY2024, 

available at: https://about.usps.com/strategicplanning/five-year-strategic-plan-2020-2024.pdf, at 

8 (Postal Service Five-Year Strategic Plan). 

6See Docket Nos. MC2014–1 and CP2014–1, 

Order Adding Parcel Select and Parcel Return 

Service Contract 5 to the Competitive Product List, 

October 29, 2013 (Order No. 1863). 

7 In this context, density can be interpreted as 

geographic density of delivery points (delivery 

points per square mile), or alternatively as ‘‘mail 

density’’ (volume per delivery point). Commenters 

who address this topic are requested to specify how 

they would define density as used to determine the 

provision of different frequency of delivery to 

different areas. 

8 Id. at 137–138. CAGs classify post offices based 

on revenue units. A revenue unit is the average 

amount of revenue per fiscal year from postal rates 

and fees for 1,000 pieces of originating mail and 

Special Service transactions. CAG H–J offices have 

190–949 revenue units; CAG K offices have 36–189 

revenue units; and CAG L offices have less than 36 

revenue units. See United States Postal Service, 

Glossary of Postal Terms, available at: https://

usps.com/publications/pub32 (Publication 32). 

9A CPU is a supplier-owned or supplier-leased 

site operated by the supplier, under contract with 

the Postal Service to provide postal products and 

services to the public at Postal Service prices. See 

Publication 32. 

10An APC is a self-service kiosk that allows 

customers to mail letters, flats, and packages; buy 

stamps and some Special Services; and mail 

international letters. It also offers ZIP Code and 

tracking lookup and provides information on 

different services. See Publication 32. 

differentiation between mail types or 

mail destinations. The Commission 

accepted as most reasonable an estimate 

that reducing delivery frequency from 6 

to 5 days would have increased the 

Postal Service’s FY 2007 net income by 

$1.930 billion (2 percent of the Postal 

Service’s total costs). Id. at 123–124. 

Since FY 2007, the mail mix has 

changed significantly. According to the 

Postal Service, it has lost about a third 

of First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing 

Mail volume.5 At the same time, 

package volumes have nearly doubled 

and have become the Postal Service’s 

primary source of revenue growth, 

although the Postal Service reports that 

growth has begun to slow since FY 2017 

as commercial customers have begun 

insourcing more of their last mile 

deliveries. Postal Service Five-Year 

Strategic Plan at 8. In the time since the 

2008 USO Report, the Postal Service has 

also begun delivering some packages on 

Sundays, thereby in some circumstances 

providing greater delivery frequency 

than what is required by the USO.6

A theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO might 

differentiate the frequency of delivery of 

letters and flats from that of packages. 

The Commission therefore seeks input 

as to whether, in the absence of a 

requirement for 6-day delivery, the 

Postal Service would be likely to 

provide different frequency of delivery 

for different types of mail. The 

Commission also seeks input as to what 

the minimum frequency of delivery 

would be for each type of mail (e.g., 

letters, flats, or packages). 

A theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO might also 

provide different levels of service to 

high-density, as opposed to low-density, 

areas.7 It could deliver more frequently 

to high-density areas, and less 

frequently to low-density areas. 

Alternatively, it could implement a 

surcharge for delivery to low-density 

areas. The Commission seeks input as to 

how a theoretical profit-maximizing 

Postal Service without a USO would be 

most likely to address delivering to 

areas that differ in density. 

In sum, the Commission seeks to 

better understand whether a theoretical 

profit-maximizing Postal Service 

without a USO in today’s operating 

environment would maintain uniform 5- 

day delivery as previously assumed, or 

whether it might differentiate delivery 

frequency either between different types 

of mail, or between high-density and 

low-density areas, or both. 

B. Maintaining Small Post Offices 

The Postal Service is required to 

‘‘establish and maintain postal facilities 

of such character and in such locations, 

that postal patrons throughout the 

Nation will, consistent with reasonable 

economies of postal operations, have 

ready access to essential postal 

services.’’ 39 U.S.C. 403(b)(3). In the 

2008 USO Report, the Commission 

noted that in developing rural free 

delivery services in the early 20th 

century, Congress substituted rural 

carrier services for the services of small 

post offices in many rural areas. 2008 

USO Report at 136. The Commission 

also noted that since FY 1985, Congress 

had added language to annual 

appropriations bills that prohibited the 

Postal Service from using appropriated 

funds to close or consolidate small rural 

and other small post offices, but the 

Commission acknowledged that this did 

not appear to bar the Postal Service from 

using other funds to close or consolidate 

small post offices because the Postal 

Service had closed or consolidated 

hundreds of small post offices since 

1985. Id. 

Two contractors addressed this issue 

in the 2008 USO Report. They differed 

as to how many small post offices 

would be closed in the absence of a 

USO—the contractor hired by the 

Commission concluded that a 

theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO would close all 

post offices in Cost Ascertainment 

Groups (CAGs) K and L, while the 

contractor hired by the Postal Service 

concluded that it would close post 

offices in CAGs H through L.8 The 

Commission found the first scenario 

(CAGs K and L) to be more plausible, 

and accepted a valuation based on 

adjusting the gross savings from closing 

such post offices with the cost of 

replacement services and the amount of 

lost revenue, which came to $0.586 

billion. Id. at 138. In accepting this 

valuation, the Commission also adopted 

the assumption of one of the two 

contractors that rural carrier services 

could be substituted for small post 

offices in the absence of a USO. Id. at 

137. 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to comment on whether a 

theoretical profit-maximizing Postal 

Service without a USO would utilize 

other alternatives besides rural carrier 

services in place of CAGs K and L, and 

whether additional post offices besides 

CAGs K and L would be eliminated. 

Since postal customers can access 

products and services online and at 

grocery stores, office supply chains, 

pharmacies, and other retail outlets, it is 

unclear whether the assumption that 

only CAGs K and L would be replaced 

or consolidated still holds. It is also 

possible that post offices could be 

replaced by Contract Postal Units 

(CPUs) 9 or Automated Postal Centers 

(APCs).10 Therefore, the Commission 

seeks input from interested persons on 

whether to revise the assumptions 

regarding which post offices would be 

closed by a theoretical profitmaximizing Postal Service without a 

USO and what replacement services 

would be utilized. 

IV. Comments 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to identify components of the 

current USO valuation methodology 

where the underlying assumptions 

about how a theoretical profitmaximizing Postal Service without a 

USO would behave are no longer 

compelling. The Commission further 

seeks suggestions concerning how to 

revise any outdated assumptions, as 

well as what data and analytical 

methods would be necessary to 

incorporate any suggested changes into 

the calculation of the USO’s cost. 

Comments are due March 15, 2021. 

Material filed in this docket will be 

available for review on the 

Commission’s website, http://

www.prc.gov. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. 

Moeller is appointed to serve as an 

officer of the Commission (Public 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
81530 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Notices 

1See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting 

Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, 

June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. 

4679). 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. PI2021–1 for the purpose of 

considering potential changes to the 

Commission’s valuation methodology 

for the Universal Service Obligation. 

2. Interested persons may submit 

written comments on any or all aspects 

of the Universal Service Obligation 

valuation methodology no later than 

March 15, 2021. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth 

R. Moeller is appointed to serve as 

Public Representative in this 

proceeding. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27635 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. CP2020–194; CP2020–197; 

CP2020–200; CP2020–201] 

New Postal Products 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recent Postal Service filing for the 

Commission’s consideration concerning 

a negotiated service agreement. This 

notice informs the public of the filing, 

invites public comment, and takes other 

administrative steps. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 

18, 2020. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the market dominant or 

the competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the market 

dominant or the competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s website (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3011.301.1

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern market dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 

CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 

39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

1. Docket No(s).: CP2020–194; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing Modification One to 

International Priority Airmail, 

Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 

Express International, Priority Mail 

International & First-Class Package 

International Service Contract 8 

Negotiated Service Agreement; Filing 

Acceptance Date: December 10, 2020; 

Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: 

December 18, 2020. 

2. Docket No(s).: CP2020–197; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing Modification One to 

Priority Mail Express International, 

Priority Mail International, First-Class 

Package International Service & 

Commercial ePacket Contract 6 

Negotiated Service Agreement; Filing 

Acceptance Date: December 10, 2020; 

Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: 

Gregory S. Stanton; Comments Due: 

December 18, 2020. 

3. Docket No(s).: CP2020–200; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing Modification One to 

International Priority Airmail, 

Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 

Express International, Priority Mail 

International & First-Class Package 

International Service with Reseller 

Contract 3 Negotiated Service 

Agreement; Filing Acceptance Date: 

December 10, 2020; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Gregory S. Stanton; 

Comments Due: December 18, 2020. 

4. Docket No(s).: CP2020–201; Filing 

Title: Notice of the United States Postal 

Service of Filing Modification One to 

International Priority Airmail, 

Commercial ePacket, Priority Mail 

Express International, Priority Mail 

International & First-Class Package 

International Service with Reseller 

Contract 4 Negotiated Service 

Agreement; Filing Acceptance Date: 

December 10, 2020; Filing Authority: 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 

3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public 

Representative: Gregory S. Stanton; 

Comments Due: December 18, 2020. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27647 Filed 12–15–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES