52718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

1Complaint of the City and County of San 

Francisco, May 18, 2011 (Complaint). 

2See POM § 615.2 (single-point delivery). 

3See POM § 631.45 (centralized delivery). 

DATE: Weeks of August 22, 29, 

September 5, 12, 19, 26, 2011. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of August 22, 2011 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 22, 2011. 

Week of August 29, 2011—Tentative 

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 

8:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public 

Meeting) (Tentative) 

Final Rule: Enhancements to 

Emergency Preparedness 

Regulations (10 CFR parts 50 and 10 

CFR part 52) (RIN—3150–Al10) 

(Tentative) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

9 a.m. Information Briefing on 

Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC), 

Related Activities (Public Meeting) 

(Contact: Aida Rivera-Varona, 301– 

415–4001) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of September 5, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 5, 2011. 

Week of September 12, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 12, 2011. 

Week of September 19, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 19, 2011. 

Week of September 26, 2011—Tentative 

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 

9 a.m. Mandatory Hearing—Southern 

Nuclear Operating Co., et al.; 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 

and 4, and Limited Work 

Authorizations (Public Meeting) 

(Contact: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415– 

1651) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—www.nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Bill 

Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits 

Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– 

415–2100, or by e-mail at 

william.dosch@nrc.gov. Determinations 

on requests for reasonable 

accommodation will be made on a caseby-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

August 18, 2011. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21626 Filed 8–19–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. C2011–2; Order No. 808] 

Complaint About Postal Services 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: San Francisco, in its 

municipal capacity, has filed a formal 

complaint alleging that there 

deficiencies in the Postal Service’s 

delivery of mail to residents of certain 

multi-unit buildings, and that the Postal 

Service is therefore not acting in 

conformance with statutory 

requirements. This document identifies 

the grounds for the complaint, reviews 

key developments, and addresses 

certain procedural matters, including 

authorization of settlement negotiations. 

DATES: The settlement coordinator’s 

report is due September 15, 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 

the 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: 

I. Introduction 

II. Postal Service Pleadings 

III. Statutory Alternatives for Commission 

Action 

IV. Analysis and Written Determination 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

A. Procedural Context 

The instant Complaint was filed with 

the Commission on May 18, 2011.1 It 

involves two statutory claims about the 

mode of delivery the Postal Service 

provides to residents of single-room 

occupancy buildings (SROs) in San 

Francisco, California. 

The impetus for the Complaint stems 

from three developments that span more 

than 5 years. The first was a growing 

concern, on the part of the City and 

County of San Francisco (San Francisco 

or Complainant) about the reliability 

and security of mail delivery to 

residents of SROs. Delivery to SROs 

generally occurs under Postal Service 

regulations specifying the ‘‘singlepoint’’ mode of delivery for hotels, 

schools and similar places. This means 

a letter carrier typically leaves a mail 

bag at or in the building, such as at the 

doorstep, in the lobby or at a central 

desk.2 Building management is 

responsible for delivering the mail to 

residents and for handling other tasks, 

such as forwarding. This contrasts with 

centralized delivery, where a letter 

carrier delivers mail pursuant to a 

regulation covering the residents of a 

multi-unit building, such as an 

apartment building, via individual, 

locked mailboxes.3

2006 ordinance. The second 

development was San Francisco’s 

adoption, in 2006, of an ordinance 

aimed at addressing its concerns about 

SRO mail delivery. Complaint at 2. The 

ordinance required SRO owners to 

install (by the end of 2007) individual, 

secure, Postal Service-compliant 

mailboxes for each resident. San 

Francisco asserts that prior to adoption 

of the ordinance, there was at least one 

conversation with a Postal Service 

employee indicating that installation of 

Postal Service-approved mailbox 

installations in SROs would result in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52719 

4City of San Francisco, et al. v. United States 

Postal Service, N.D. Cal. (1964). 

5Motion of United States Postal Service for 

Partial Dismissal of the Complaint, June 7, 2011 

(Motion). 

6City and County of San Francisco’s Answer in 

Opposition to Motion of United States Postal 

Service for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint, June 

15, 2011. 

7Order Granting, in Part, Postal Service Motion 

To Dismiss Count 1, July 29, 2011. 

8The statute does not specify the precise nature 

of the proceedings. 

switch from single-point delivery to 

centralized delivery. 

Following adoption of the ordinance, 

some SRO owners installed individual 

mailboxes and the Postal Service 

apparently began delivering mail to 

residents of these SROs via centralized 

delivery. However, this practice was 

later reviewed (as part of a broader 

evaluation) and found to be contrary to 

the postal regulation that establishes 

single-point delivery as the appropriate 

mode of delivery for SROs. The Postal 

Service informed a city official that it 

would continue to deliver mail via 

centralized delivery to SROs where 

individual mailboxes had been 

installed, but would use single-point 

delivery for all others, including those 

that installed individual mailboxes in 

the future. See id. Exh. 1 at 1–2. 

Federal lawsuit. The third 

development was San Francisco’s filing 

of a Federal lawsuit in 2009. The 

grounds, in brief, were that the Postal 

Service’s post-ordinance actions raise 

constitutional questions and regulatory 

(title 39) issues.4 The court dismissed 

the regulatory issues (finding them 

within the Commission’s purview), but 

retained jurisdiction over the 

constitutional claims. At this point, the 

record shows that the Federal lawsuit is 

still pending. A lengthy discovery phase 

is nearing an end; dispositive motions 

are to be heard by October 13, 2011; and 

a trial date has been set for January 9, 

2012. See Answer of the United States 

Postal Service, August 8, 2011, Exh. 1 

(Answer). 

B. The Commission’s Section 3662

Jurisdiction 

Commission jurisdiction over formal 

complaints is set out in section 3662(a). 

This section provides: 

Any interested person * * * who believes 

the Postal Service is not operating in 

conformance with the requirements of the 

provisions of sections 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 

404a, or 601, or this chapter (or regulations 

promulgated under any of those provisions) 

may lodge a complaint with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission * * *. 

39 U.S.C. 3662(a). 

San Francisco generally claims that 

there are deficiencies in the Postal 

Service’s delivery of mail to most SRO 

residents in California, and that these 

deficiencies cause harm to the affected 

residents and to San Francisco. 

Complaint at 1. For purposes of 

establishing Commission jurisdiction, it 

relies on two of the provisions 

identified in section 3662: sections 

401(2) and 403(c). Section 401(2) grants 

the Postal Service, as one of its general 

powers, the authority to adopt, amend, 

and repeal any rules and regulations 

necessary to the execution of its 

statutory functions, to the extent such 

rules and regulations are not 

inconsistent with title 39. 39 U.S.C. 

401(2). Section 403(c) states that in 

providing services under title 39 ‘‘the 

Postal Service shall not, except as 

specifically authorized in this title, 

make any undue or unreasonable 

discrimination among users of the 

mails, nor shall it grant any undue or 

unreasonable preferences to any such 

user.’’ 39 U.S.C. 403(c). 

C. The Nexus Between Complainant’s 

Assertions and Section 3662

Jurisdiction 

The asserted link to section 401(2). 

San Francisco’s reading of postal 

regulations leads it to conclude that 

mail delivery to residents of SROs 

should be provided under centralized 

delivery regulations, rather than under 

regulations for single-point delivery, 

assuming the SRO has individual, 

locked mailboxes. It maintains that the 

Postal Service erroneously classifies 

SROs under the delivery regulation for 

hotels and schools, and is therefore 

failing to enforce its own regulations. 

Complaint at 16. 

The asserted link to section 403(c). 

San Francisco asserts that the Postal 

Service’s decision to use single-point 

delivery for residents of SROs reflects 

their socioeconomic status, especially 

relative to apartment dwellers, and 

unfounded assumptions about the 

transience of SRO residents, and 

therefore unduly discriminates against 

SRO residents and grants an undue 

preference to apartment dwellers in 

violation of 39 U.S.C. 403(c). Id. at 12. 

II. Postal Service Pleadings 

On June 7, 2011, the Postal Service 

filed a motion seeking dismissal of 

count 1 of the two-count Complaint.5

The basis was lack of jurisdiction under 

section 401(2). The Postal Service did 

not seek dismissal of count 2, stating 

instead that the Complainant arguably 

set out a claim with respect to undue 

discrimination. Id. at 2. The 

Complainant filed an opposition to the 

Motion.6 The Commission granted the 

Motion, in part, by striking allegations 

in count 1 that correspondence between 

the San Francisco Postmaster and a city 

official had not been adopted pursuant 

to Federal rulemaking procedures.7 This 

disposition led to the filing of the Postal 

Service’s Answer on August 8, 2011. 

In its Answer, the Postal Service 

serially addresses each paragraph, 

providing responses that admit, deny, 

disclaim sufficient knowledge to the 

assertion, or state no response is 

needed. With respect to points central to 

the Complaint, it denies that San 

Francisco has alleged any ‘‘deficiencies’’ 

in mail delivery service and that ‘‘the 

socioeconomic circumstances of 

delivery customers matter when making 

decisions about the appropriate mode of 

delivery.’’ Answer at 1–2. The Postal 

Service also denies the applicability of 

POM 631.45, contending the controlling 

regulation is POM 615.2, Mail 

Addressed to Persons at Hotels, Schools, 

and Similar Places. Id. at 4. It adds that 

San Francisco has not made any 

showing, as required under POM 631.6 

(Conversion of Mode of Delivery) that 

conversion to another mode of delivery 

is warranted. Id. 

Significantly, the Postal Service also 

states that it ‘‘would not object to 

delivering mail at those locations by 

placing it into a locked receptacle 

* * *.’’ Id. at 3. 

III. Statutory Alternatives for 

Commission Action 

The Commission has two affirmative 

alternatives for handling a section 3662 

complaint under section 3662(b). One is 

to begin proceedings upon a finding that 

the complaint raises material issues of 

fact or law. 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1)(A)(i).8

The other alternative is to issue an order 

dismissing the complaint. 39 U.S.C. 

3662(b)(1)(A)(ii). Action under either 

alternative is to be taken within 90 days 

and supported by a written statement 

setting forth the basis for the 

determination. 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1) and 

3662(b)(1)(B). 

IV. Analysis and Written Determination 

The parties recognize that the Postal 

Service’s current delivery practices do 

differentiate between residents of many 

SROs in San Francisco and apartment 

dwellers. Thus, the current issue before 

the Commission is whether the 

pleadings indicate that there are 

material questions of fact and law on 

this point. 

In its Complaint, San Francisco 

concludes that in light of the parties’ 

inability to resolve their dispute during 

mediation associated with the Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

9San Francisco states that 18,000 San Franciscans 

live in SROs. Id. at 6. 

lawsuit, it believes that additional steps 

to settle this matter prior to the filing of 

this Complaint would have been futile. 

Complaint at 15–16. However, as 

referenced above, the Postal Service 

Answer contains what appears to be a 

good faith offer to address the concerns 

that initially motivated this controversy 

by providing a new delivery option for 

residents of most SROs in San 

Francisco: delivery of the mail to a 

locked receptacle, with management 

continuing to be responsible from that 

point. The Commission views the Postal 

Service’s offer as an attempt to 

appropriately balance the concerns of 

the Complainant (for more security and 

reliability in mail delivery) and the 

Postal Service (for efficiency and 

effectiveness, including the cost 

implications of adding numerous 

delivery points at an especially critical 

financial time).9

The Commission therefore defers 

action on this Complaint and directs 

that the parties begin settlement 

negotiations based on the Postal 

Service’s offer. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

505, the Commission designates James 

Waclawski as officer of the Commission 

(Public Representative) to represent the 

interests of the public. The Public 

Representative shall also serve as 

settlement coordinator. The 

Commission strongly believes that all 

concerned would be best served by a 

negotiated settlement of this matter. It 

directs the Public Representative to file 

a report on the progress of settlement 

within 30 days of the issuance of this 

order. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission defers its decision 

on whether the Complaint of the City 

and County of San Francisco presents 

material questions of fact and law, 

pending settlement discussions between 

the parties. 

2. The Commission directs the 

Complainant and the Postal Service to 

immediately engage in settlement 

negotiations with the goal of 

expeditiously resolving this controversy 

based on the Postal Service’s offer. 

3. The Commission, pursuant to 

section 505, appoints James Waclawski 

to serve as Public Representative in this 

proceeding and to serve as settlement 

coordinator. 

4. The Commission directs the 

settlement coordinator to file a report 

within 30 days of the date of this order. 

5. The Commission directs the 

Secretary of the Commission to arrange 

for publication of this order in the 

Federal Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21415 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. A2011–47; Order No. 805] 

Post Office Closing 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public that an appeal of the closing of 

the Francitas, Texas post office has been 

filed. It identifies preliminary steps and 

provides a procedural schedule. 

Publication of this document will allow 

the Postal Service, petitioners, and 

others to take appropriate action. 

DATES: Administrative record due (from 

Postal Service): August 30, 2011; 

deadline for notices to intervene: 

September 12, 2011. See the Procedural 

Schedule in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for other dates of 

interest. 

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 

the 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: Notice is 

hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

404(d), on August 15, 2011, the 

Commission received a petition for 

review of the Postal Service’s 

determination to close the post office in 

Francitas, Texas. The petition was filed 

by Carolina Jalufka (Petitioner) and is 

postmarked August 6, 2011. The 

Commission hereby institutes a 

proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) 

and establishes Docket No. A2011–47 to 

consider Petitioner’s appeal. If 

Petitioner would like to further explain 

her position with supplemental 

information or facts, Petitioner may 

either file a Participant Statement on 

PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the 

Commission no later than September 19, 

2011. 

Categories of issues apparently raised. 

Petitioner contends that the Postal 

Service failed to consider the effect of 

the closing on the community. See 39 

U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i). 

After the Postal Service files the 

administrative record and the 

Commission reviews it, the Commission 

may find that there are more legal issues 

than those set forth above, or that the 

Postal Service’s determination disposes 

of one or more of those issues. The 

deadline for the Postal Service to file the 

applicable administrative record with 

the Commission is August 30, 2011. See 

39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due 

date for any responsive pleading by the 

Postal Service to this notice is August 

30, 2011. 

Availability; Web site posting. The 

Commission has posted the appeal and 

supporting material on its Web site at 

http://www.prc.gov. Additional filings 

in this case and participants’ 

submissions also will be posted on the 

Commission’s Web site, if provided in 

electronic format or amenable to 

conversion, and not subject to a valid 

protective order. Information on how to 

use the Commission’s Web site is 

available online or by contacting the 

Commission’s webmaster via telephone 

at 202–789–6873 or via electronic mail 

at prc-webmaster@prc.gov. 

The appeal and all related documents 

are also available for public inspection 

in the Commission’s docket section. 

Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., eastern time, Monday through 

Friday, except on Federal government 

holidays. Docket section personnel may 

be contacted via electronic mail at prcdockets@prc.gov or via telephone at 

202–789–6846. 

Filing of documents. All filings of 

documents in this case shall be made 

using the Internet (Filing Online) 

pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 

10(a) at the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is 

obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 

3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an 

account to file documents online may be 

found on the Commission’s Web site or 

by contacting the Commission’s docket 

section at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via 

telephone at 202–789–6846. 

The Commission reserves the right to 

redact personal information which may 

infringe on an individual’s privacy 

rights from documents filed in this 

proceeding. 

Intervention. Persons, other than 

Petitioner and respondent, wishing to be 

heard in this matter are directed to file 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES