Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 107171 

from the extension of HALEU 

operations through December 31, 2025. 

Therefore, staff finds the preparation of 

an EIS is not warranted. Accordingly, 

the NRC determined that a FONSI is 

appropriate. In accordance with 10 CFR 

51.32(a)(4), the FONSI incorporates the 

EA set forth in this notice by reference. 

IV. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document description 

ADAMS accession 

No./Federal Register 

citation/website 

License Amendment Request for American Centrifuge Operating, LLC’s License Application and Supporting Documents for the American Centrifuge Plant, dated September 12, 2024.ML24262A084. 

Supplement to License Amendment Request for American Centrifuge Operating, LLC’s License Application 

for the American Centrifuge Plant, dated November 4, 2024.

ML24324A321 (Package). 

Supplement to License Amendment Request for American Centrifuge Operating, LLC’s License Application 

for the American Centrifuge Plant, dated November 21, 2024.

ML24331A050. 

NRC Email to ACO re: NRC’s Acceptance for Detailed Review of American Centrifuge Operating’s Request to Extend Phase II HALEU Operations, dated October 21, 2024.ML24298A160. 

License Amendment 24, NRC Approval of American Centrifuge Operating’s Amendment Request to Increase its Possession Limits to Support HALEU Production at the American Centrifuge Plant, dated September 20, 2024.ML24068A189. 

License SNM–2011, Amendment 24, dated September 20, 2024 .................................................................... ML24068A191. 

EA for Proposed License Amendment to Increase Possession Limits for Licensed Material for the HALEU 

Program at the American Centrifuge Plant, Piketon, Ohio, dated September 2024.

ML24254A206. 

Federal Register Notice for EA Proposed License Amendment to Increase Possession Limits for Licensed 

Material for the HALEU Program at the American Centrifuge Plant, Piketon, Ohio, publication date September 19, 2024.

89 FR 76871 

ML24214A324. 

License Amendment 13, NRC Approval of American Centrifuge Operating’s Request Operate Sixteen Centrifuges to Demonstrate Production of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium, dated June 11, 2021.ML21138A826 (Package). 

American Centrifuge Operating Effluent Reporting for the Period of January 1 through June 30, 2024; 

dated August 29, 2024. Corrected report, dated September 5, 2024.

ML24253A176 

ML24253A175 (corrected report). 

Email transmitting the draft EA to Ohio agencies for review, dated November 4, 2024 .................................. ML24346A064. 

Email to EPA Region 5 transmitting the draft EA for review, dated November 4, 2024 .................................. ML24346A059. 

Email to Ohio State Historic Preservation Office re: courtesy notification of NRC review of ACO’s license 

amendment request, dated November 4, 2024.

ML24346A060. 

Biden-Harris Administration Announces 6 Contracts to Spur America’s Domestic HALEU Supply Chain as 

Part of Investing in America Agenda, dated October 8, 2024.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/ 

biden-harris-administration-announces-6-contracts-spur-americas-domestic-haleu-supply. 

Dated: December 23, 2024. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Diana Diaz Toro, 

Acting Chief, Environmental Project 

Management, Branch 2, Division of 

Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial 

Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety, 

and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31376 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–354, 50–272, 50–311, 50– 

277, 50–278, 72–48, and 72–29; NRC–2024– 

0206] 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC; Hope Creek 

Generating Station, Salem Generating 

Station, Units 1 and 2, and Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 

and 3; Exemption 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing 

exemptions in response to a May 28, 

2024, request from PSEG Nuclear, LLC, 

for Hope Creek Generating Station, 

Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, 

and Peach Bottom Atomic Power 

Station, Units 2 and 3. The exemptions 

allow the licensee to periodically 

transfer earnings from funds dedicated 

for radiological decommissioning 

activities in its nuclear 

decommissioning trust (NDT) into 

separately maintained subaccounts 

within the NDT for certain activities 

that do not fall within the definition of 

‘‘decommission’’ in NRC regulations 

without prior NRC notification. 

DATES: The exemption was issued on 

December 23, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2024–0206 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2024–0206. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individual listed 

in the ‘‘For Further Information 

Contact’’ section of this document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for each document 

referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) 

is provided the first time that it is 

mentioned in this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
107172 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 

1See Title 26 of the CFR (26 CFR), Section 

1.468A–1(b)(6), of the Treasury Department 

regulations implementing Section 468A of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Audrey Klett, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–0489; email: 

Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the exemption is attached. 

Dated: December 23, 2024. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Audrey L. Klett, 

Senior Project Manager, Licensing Projects 

Branch 1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

Attached—Exemption 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Docket Nos. 50–354, 50–272, 50–311, 

50–277, 50–278, 72–48, 72–29 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 

Units 2 and 3 Exemptions 

I. Background 

PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG, the 

licensee) is the holder of renewed 

facility operating license NPF–57 for 

Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope 

Creek). Hope Creek is a single unit 

boiling-water reactor licensed under 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50. PSEG in 

conjunction with Constellation Energy 

Generation, LLC (Constellation) hold 

renewed facility operating licenses 

DPR–70 and DPR–75 for Salem 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 

(Salem), respectively. PSEG holds a 

57.41 percent ownership share in Salem 

and is the licensed operator. The 

exemption request, therefore, is only 

appliable to PSEG’s portion of Salem’s 

decommissioning trust fund. Salem is a 

dual unit pressurized-water reactor 

licensed under 10 CFR part 50. Hope 

Creek and Salem are co-located and 

share the onsite independent spent fuel 

storage installation (ISFSI), which has a 

general license under 10 CFR part 72. 

PSEG in conjunction with Constellation 

hold subsequent renewed facility 

operating licenses DPR–44 and DPR–56 

for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 

Units 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom). PSEG 

holds a 50 percent ownership share in 

Peach Bottom, and Constellation is the 

licensed operator. The exemption 

request, therefore, is only applicable to 

PSEG’s portion of Peach Bottom’s 

decommissioning trust fund. Peach 

Bottom is a dual unit boiling-water 

reactor licensed under 10 CFR part 50. 

There is an ISFSI onsite at Peach 

Bottom, which has a general license 

under 10 CFR part 72. 

II. Request/Action 

By letter dated May 28, 2024 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML24150A002), and 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ‘‘Specific 

exemptions,’’ the licensee submitted to 

the NRC a request for exemptions from 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) for Hope Creek, Salem, 

and Peach Bottom (collectively, the 

PSEG facilities). The licensee has 

requested these exemptions to allow the 

licensee to periodically transfer earnings 

from funds dedicated for radiological 

decommissioning activities consistent 

with the definition of ‘‘decommission’’ 

in 10 CFR 50.2 in its nuclear 

decommissioning trust (NDT) into 

separately maintained ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts within the NDT without 

prior NRC notification. The ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts would be used to 

separately account for funds to pay for 

‘‘decommissioning costs,’’ as defined by 

the U.S. Treasury Department,1 for each 

facility. These costs include costs for 

radiological and non-radiological 

activities that do not fall within the 

NRC’s definition of ‘‘decommission’’ in 

10 CFR 50.2, including major 

radioactive component (MRC) disposal 

during operations, site restoration 

activities, and certain spent fuel 

management activities. The licensee 

states that these periodic transfers of 

earnings may only occur if certain 

conditions, as discussed below in 

section III, have been met. The licensee 

also indicated that because the request 

relies on earnings during operations, the 

exemptions would terminate for a 

facility once the certifications of 

permanents cessation of operations and 

permanent removal of fuel from the 

applicable reactor vessel have been 

submitted to the NRC. 

The licensee previously notified the 

NRC in 2023 of a proposed amendment 

to the PSEG Master Decommissioning 

Trust Agreement that would exclude 

funds in a ‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccount from 

being subject to NRC requirements and 

clarify that the funds in these 

subaccounts will not be relied upon for 

providing decommissioning financial 

assurance required by 10 CFR 50.75 

(ML23252A001). The licensee indicated 

that the funds in the ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts were intended to pay for 

decommissioning costs as defined by 

the U.S. Treasury Department in 26 CFR 

1.468A–1(b)(6). The NRC objected to 

this notification from PSEG indicating 

that while the subaccounts may be 

established and withdrawals made, the 

earnings from funds originally 

dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning as defined in 10 CFR 

50.2 are restricted by 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) to being withdrawn only 

for radiological decommissioning 

expenses as defined in 10 CFR 50.2 

(ML23270C007). Further, the NRC staff 

noted that PSEG would need to request 

and have approved an exemption from 

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) in order for PSEG to 

periodically transfer future earnings 

from the NDT to specific subaccounts 

within the NDT for decommissioning 

costs that do not fall under the 

definition in 10 CFR 50.2 and amend 

the Master Decommissioning Trust 

Agreement. 

The Commission’s regulation 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) restricts withdrawals 

from the decommissioning trust fund 

(DTF) to expenses for legitimate 

decommissioning activities consistent 

with the definition in 10 CFR 50.2, 

‘‘Definitions.’’ The definition of 

‘‘decommission’’ in 10 CFR 50.2 is ‘‘to 

remove a facility or site safely from 

service and reduce residual 

radioactivity to a level that permits (1) 

release of the property for unrestricted 

use and termination of the license; or (2) 

release of the property under restricted 

conditions and termination of the 

license.’’ The regulation at 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) also restricts the use of 

DTF disbursements (other than for 

ordinary administrative costs and other 

incidental expenses of the fund in 

connection with the operation of the 

fund) to decommissioning expenses 

until final radiological 

decommissioning is completed. These 

regulations would prohibit a licensee 

from transferring earnings from funds 

dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning as defined in 10 CFR 

50.2 to any ‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts 

within the DTF for activities that do not 

fall within the definition of 

‘‘decommission’’ in 10 CFR 50.2. 

Therefore, exemptions from 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) are needed to allow PSEG 

to transfer earnings from the NDT to 

‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts within the 

NDT for activities such as MRC disposal 

during operations, spent fuel 

management, and site restoration. 

The requirements in 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) further provide that, 

except for withdrawals being made 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 107173 

under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) or for 

payments of ordinary administrative 

costs and other incidental expenses of 

the fund in connection with the 

operation of the fund, no disbursement 

may be made from the DTF without 

written notice to the NRC at least 30 

working days in advance. Therefore, an 

exemption from 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) 

is also needed to allow the licensee to 

make withdrawals from the ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts within the NDT without 

prior notification to the NRC. 

PSEG also notes that its exemption 

request is informed by draft NRC 

Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) on the use 

of decommissioning trust funds during 

operations, ‘‘Draft Interim Staff 

Guidance on the Use of the 

Decommissioning Trust Fund During 

Operations for Major Radioactive 

Component Disposal,’’ dated June 21, 

2023 (ML23150A051). After 

consideration of public comments, the 

NRC staff issued REFS–ISG–2024–01, 

‘‘Interim Staff Guidance on the Use of 

the Decommissioning Trust Fund 

During Operations for Major Radioactive 

Component Disposal,’’ dated August 5, 

2024 (ML24114A263), which provides 

clarifying guidance on the NRC’s 

position on the use of decommissioning 

trust funds during operations for MRC 

disposal. The ISG states, in part, as 

follows: 

A licensee may request an exemption in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, to permit 

withdrawal of funds from the DTF for the 

removal and disposal of MRCs, prior to the 

cessation of operations and initiation of 

decommissioning. The withdrawal of funds 

from the DTF may only be used to pay for 

the offsite disposal of MRCs when the NRC 

has determined the total DTF contains funds 

in excess of cost estimates to complete all 

required radiological decommissioning. In 

addition, licensees may use economic 

projections for future years in calculating the 

amount of excess funds in the DTF. However, 

significant changes in the economic 

conditions of a licensee, combined with 

withdrawals from the trust fund, have the 

potential to result in future shortfalls in the 

DTF. The Commission has stated trust fund 

withdrawals for the disposal of MRCs would 

be granted only ‘‘in extraordinary 

circumstances’’ (73 FR 62221, 62222, and 

62224; October 20, 2008). For these reasons, 

the staff evaluates each exemption request for 

a DTF withdrawal based on a totality of facts 

in determining whether to grant or deny a 

request. REFS–ISG–2024–01 at 3–4 (internal 

citations omitted). 

III. Discussion 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to the 

public health and safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security; and (2) any of the special 

circumstances listed in 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2) are present. These special 

circumstances include, among other 

things, (1) application of the regulation 

in the particular circumstances would 

not serve the underlying purpose of the 

rule or is not necessary to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the rule and (2) 

compliance would result in undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated. 

A. The Exemptions Are Authorized by 

Law 

The requested exemptions from 10 

CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) would allow the licensee 

to periodically transfer earnings from 

funds in the NDT dedicated for 

radiological decommissioning, as 

defined in 50.2, to ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts within the NDT dedicated 

for decommissioning activities not 

restricted to radiological 

decommissioning without prior notice 

to the NRC for the PSEG facilities. The 

‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts would be used 

to separately account for funds to pay 

for ‘‘decommissioning costs,’’ as defined 

by the U.S. Treasury Department in 26 

CFR 1.468A–1(b)(6), for each facility. 

These costs include costs for 

radiological and non-radiological 

activities that do not fall within the 

definition of ‘‘decommission’’ in 10 CFR 

50.2, including MRC disposal during 

operations, site restoration activities, 

and certain spent fuel management 

activities. These periodic transfers of 

earnings may only occur if certain 

conditions, as discussed below, have 

been met. 

As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows 

the NRC to grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when 

the exemptions are authorized by law. 

The NRC staff has determined that, as 

explained in section D below, there 

would be reasonable assurance of 

adequate funding for radiological 

decommissioning of the PSEG facilities 

because the licensee’s periodic transfer 

of the decommissioning trust fund 

earnings from the NDT into ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts within the NDT for future 

non-radiological decommissioning 

activities including MRC disposal 

during operations, site restoration, and 

spent fuel management activities, would 

not negatively impact the licensee’s 

ability to complete radiological 

decommissioning within 60 years of 

permanent cessation of operations or the 

licensee’s ability to terminate licenses 

for the PSEG facilities. Accordingly, 

granting the licensee’s proposed 

exemptions will not result in a violation 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, or the Commission’s 

regulations. Therefore, issuance of the 

exemptions is authorized by law. 

B. The Exemptions Present no Undue 

Risk to Public Health and Safety 

As explained in further detail in 

section D below, based on the NRC 

staff’s review of PSEG’s exemption 

request and the site-specific 

decommissioning cost estimates 

(SSDCEs) for Hope Creek, Salem, and 

Peach Bottom, and the associated cash 

flow analyses, as confirmed by NRC 

staff, there would be reasonable 

assurance of adequate funding for 

radiological decommissioning of the 

PSEG facilities because the periodic 

transfer of some of the excess earnings 

from NDT funds dedicated to 

radiological decommissioning into 

‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts, as well as the 

subsequent use of the funds within the 

subaccounts, will not adversely affect 

the licensee’s ability to complete 

radiological decommissioning within 60 

years of permanent cessation of 

operations or the licensee’s ability to 

terminate licenses at Hope Creek, 

Salem, and Peach Bottom. Furthermore, 

an exemption from 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the licensee to 

transfer earnings to the subaccounts 

dedicated to non-radiological 

decommissioning activities without 

prior written notification to the NRC 

will not affect the sufficiency of funds 

in the NDT to accomplish radiological 

decommissioning because such transfers 

are constrained by conditions set forth 

in the exemption request and further 

discussed below in section D and are 

reviewable under the biennial reporting 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1). 

Therefore, the requested exemptions 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health and safety if granted. 

In addition, granting the requested 

exemptions will not alter the operation 

of any plant equipment or systems and, 

therefore, does not present an undue 

risk to public health and safety. The 

proposed exemptions do not introduce 

any new industrial, radiological, or 

chemical hazards that would present a 

health and safety risk nor would 

granting the exemptions result in 

modifying or removing design or 

operational controls or safeguards that 

are intended to mitigate onsite hazards. 

This exemption does not diminish the 

effectiveness of other regulations that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
107174 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 

ensure available funding for 

decommissioning, including 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(6), which prohibits licensees 

from performing any decommissioning 

activities that could foreclose release of 

the site for possible unrestricted use, 

result in significant environmental 

impacts not previously reviewed, or 

result in there no longer being 

reasonable assurance that adequate 

funds will be available for 

decommissioning; therefore, the 

requested exemptions will not present 

an undue risk to the public health and 

safety. 

C. The Exemptions Are Consistent With 

the Common Defense and Security 

The requested exemptions would 

allow the licensee to transfer earnings 

from funds dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning of the PSEG facilities 

to subaccounts dedicated to nonradiological decommissioning activities. 

The proposed exemptions, including the 

use of these funds without prior NRC 

notification, would not alter the design, 

function, or operation of any structures 

or plant equipment that is necessary to 

maintain the safe and secure status of 

the plant and would not adversely affect 

the licensee’s ability to physically 

secure its sites or protect special nuclear 

material. Furthermore, this change to 

enable the use of a portion of the NDT 

funds for non-radiological 

decommissioning activities has no 

relation to physical security issues. 

Therefore, the common defense and 

security is not impacted by the 

requested exemptions. 

D. Special Circumstances 

The regulation under 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2) states, in part, that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission will not consider granting 

an exemption unless special 

circumstances are present,’’ and 

identifies, in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(i)–(iv), 

when special circumstances are present. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are 

present whenever application of the 

regulation in the particular 

circumstances would not serve the 

underlying purpose of the rule or is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the rule. 

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) is to ensure that there is 

reasonable assurance that adequate 

funds will be available for radiological 

decommissioning of power reactors 

within 60 years of permanent cessation 

of operations. Strict application of 10 

CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) would prohibit the 

transfer and subsequent use of earnings 

from the funds dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning as defined by the NRC 

in 10 CFR 50.2 in the NDT into ‘‘non50.75’’ subaccounts within the NDT 

dedicated to ‘‘decommissioning’’ 

activities, as defined by the U.S. 

Department of Treasury (including the 

disposal of MRCs during operations, 

spent fuel management activities, and 

site restoration), and would require 

prior NRC notification of any 

withdrawals or transfer of such funds. 

The NRC staff performed an 

independent analysis of the financial 

information provided in Enclosure 1, as 

supported by the site-specific 

decommissioning cost estimates for 

Salem, Hope Creek, and Peach Bottom 

in Attachments 1–3, respectively, of 

PSEG’s exemption request. PSEG 

conservatively chose to use a starting 

NDT balance for each unit that excludes 

any funds accounted for in the ‘‘non50.75’’ subaccounts, as of December 31, 

2023. Accordingly, the NRC staff used 

the more conservative projected NDT 

starting balances provided by PSEG in 

its exemption request. The balances in 

the NDT for each unit as of December 

31, 2023, were $495.17 million (M) for 

Salem, Unit 1, $413.6M for Salem, Unit 

2, $662.95M for Hope Creek, $408.97M 

for Peach Bottom, Unit 2, and $403.48M 

for Peach Bottom, Unit 3. NRC staff then 

escalated these amounts using a 2 

percent real rate of return, as allowed by 

NRC regulations, to each unit’s 

respective expected date of permanent 

cessation of operations. The resulting 

NDT balances for each unit were 

$603.61M for Salem, Unit 1, $565.79M 

for Salem, Unit 2, $985.10M for Hope 

Creek, $469.78M for Peach Bottom, Unit 

2, and $472.73M for Peach Bottom, Unit 

3. Finally, the most recent SSDCEs for 

each unit used by NRC staff in its 

analysis were $518.81M for Salem, Unit 

1, $511.62M for Salem, Unit 2, $1.22B 

for Hope Creek, $474.28M for Peach 

Bottom, Unit 2, and $501.61M for Peach 

Bottom, Unit 3. 

Using the projected NDT balance at 

the time of permanent cessation of 

operation (as described above), the 

estimated annual radiological costs over 

SAFSTOR and active decommissioning 

periods, and a 2 percent real rate of 

return on the NDT over the 

decommissioning period, the NRC staff 

performed a beginning-of-year cashflow 

analysis for each unit to confirm the 

information provided in the exemption 

request. PSEG used a beginning-of-year 

analysis in its request, which is a more 

conservative approach than what the 

NRC staff typically uses in its standard 

review process (middle-of-year 

analysis). In its analysis, the NRC staff 

found that excess amounts were 

projected after completion of 

radiological decommissioning. The 

resulting excess funding amounts for 

each unit were $1.23B for Salem, Unit 

1, $961.86M for Salem, Unit 2, $1.5B for 

Hope Creek, $831.7M for Peach Bottom, 

Unit 2, and $775.78M for Peach Bottom, 

Unit 3. 

Additionally, PSEG performed 

sensitivity analyses using the same 

SSDCE cashflow analyses described 

above with the exception of taking 

credit for earnings on NDT funds during 

operations. NRC staff confirmed that, 

when considering a 0% real rate of 

return during operations (effectively, 

conservatively assuming that all excess 

earnings on the funds are transferred to 

‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts during 

operations) and a 2% real rate of return 

during the decommissioning period for 

each unit, significant surplus of funds 

remain at completion of 

decommissioning. Specifically, the 

resulting excess funding for each unit 

were $786.9M for Salem 1, $485.2M for 

Salem 2, $284.3M for Hope Creek, 

$565.9M for Peach Bottom, Unit 2, and 

$486.1M for Peach Bottom, Unit 3. 

In addition, PSEG has proposed three 

conditions to the exemption that would 

allow periodic transfers to the ‘‘non50.75’’ subaccounts without prior NRC 

notification over the operating life of 

each unit such that: 

• Transfers are limited to earnings 

from funds dedicated for radiological 

decommissioning determined by an 

increase in the amount of funds 

accumulated in the NDT since the last 

decommissioning funding status (DFS) 

report submitted under 10 CFR 

50.75(f)(1). 

• At the time of the transfer, the 

amount of decommissioning funding 

assurance (DFA) provided by NDT 

funds, excluding funds held in the 

subaccounts, using the prepayment 

method in 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(i) must 

exceed the amount of DFA required by 

10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) for the 

associated station by at least $100 

million (nominal dollars). 

• DFS reports submitted under 10 

CFR 50.75(f)(1) will include the amount 

of funds transferred into the 

subaccounts since the last submitted 

report. 

Based on its review, the NRC staff 

finds that these conditions, proposed by 

PSEG: (1) ensure periodic transfers are 

restricted to actual earnings from funds 

dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning in the NDT (RD 

funds) and that no transfers can be made 

if the value of the RD funds has 

decreased since the last submitted DFS 

report; (2) ensure that post-transfer NDT 

funding for each unit is in the amount 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 107175 

required to ensure at least $100M above 

NRC DFA requirements in 10 CFR 

50.75(b) and (c); and (3) allow the 

periodic transfers to the ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts to be monitored by the 

NRC. In addition, the NRC staff notes 

that PSEG also requested that the 

exemptions cease to be effective on an 

individual reactor basis once the 

certifications of permanent cessation of 

operations and permanent removal of 

fuel from the reactor vessel required 

under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) have 

been submitted. The NRC staff finds that 

expiration of the exemption at this stage 

would ensure that RD funds and future 

earnings are designated for their 

intended purpose during 

decommissioning. 

Furthermore, in its request, PSEG 

describes various methods to augment 

the NDT in the event of a projected 

shortfall in funding dedicated to the 

radiological decommissioning of the 

PSEG units. In accordance with 10 CFR 

50.75, if the NDT is not sufficiently 

funded, as identified in a DFS report 

submitted under 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), 

then the shortfall in funding must be 

rectified by the next DFS report 

submission. PSEG identified various 

additional funding methods, as 

described in 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1) and 

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.159 Revision 2, 

‘‘Assuring the Availability of Funds for 

Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors’’ 

(ML112160012), that could be used 

including: 

• Funds held in ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts would be readily available 

to be transferred to their associated RD 

funds account without prior approval 

(or subject to disapproval) by a State 

regulatory authority, thereby dedicated 

for radiological decommissioning as 

prepaid funds under 10 CFR 

50.75(e)(1)(i). 

• Generation of electric energy from 

PSEG’s operating nuclear plants 

provides a source of revenue for cash 

injections to the NDT as prepaid funds 

under 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(i). 

• PSEG’s parent company meets 

Financial Test A.2 in Appendix A in 10 

CFR part 30 for providing a guarantee in 

an amount that would be a significant 

part of the required amount of funding, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(iii). 

Based on its review, the NRC staff 

finds that the additional funding 

mechanisms identified by PSEG provide 

assurance that there are means available 

to address any shortfalls in radiological 

decommissioning funding identified in 

a DFS report analysis. 

In summary, the NRC staff finds that 

reasonable assurance exists that 

adequate funds will be available in 

PSEG’s NDT to complete radiological 

decommissioning and terminate the Part 

50 licenses for Salem, Hope Creek, and 

Peach Bottom because the proposed 

periodic transfer of funds to ‘‘non50.75’’ subaccounts will not adversely 

impact PSEG’s ability to complete 

radiological decommissioning within 60 

years of permanent cessation of 

operations and terminate the PSEG 

licenses based on the following 

considerations: (1) the NRC staff’s 

independent review of the licensee’s 

request confirmed large projected excess 

amounts remaining in each fund after 

completion of decommissioning for 

each facility; (2) the exemptions would 

be subject to three conditions proposed 

by PSEG described above that place 

certain restrictions on the periodic 

transfer of excess earnings from NDT 

funds dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning to ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts such that the transfers will 

not adversely affect PSEG’s ability to 

meet the minimum decommissioning 

funding assurance requirements 

described in 10 CFR 50.75, and the 

conditions provide a means for the NRC 

staff to track the periodic transfers; (3) 

the exemptions will cease to be effective 

on an individual reactor basis once the 

certifications for permanent cessation of 

operations and permanent removal of 

fuel from the reactor vessel required 

under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) have been 

submitted; and (4) the additional 

funding mechanisms identified by PSEG 

ensure there are means available to 

address any shortfalls in radiological 

decommissioning funding identified in 

a DFS report analysis. Further, based on 

a totality of the circumstances discussed 

above, the NRC staff finds that PSEG has 

demonstrated extraordinary 

circumstances in support of the 

proposed exemptions allowing PSEG to 

periodically transfer earnings from the 

NDT to ‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts within 

the NDT for MRC disposal during 

operations. Accordingly, the NRC staff 

finds that the underlying purposes of 10 

CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) to ensure that there is 

reasonable assurance that adequate 

funds will be available for radiological 

decommissioning of power reactors 

within 60 years of permanent cessation 

of operations would still be achieved by 

allowing the exemptions for PSEG to 

transfer excess earnings to ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts and use the funding for 

MRC disposal during operations, spent 

fuel management, and site restoration 

activities at Salem, Hope Creek, and 

Peach Bottom. 

In its submittal, the PSEG also 

requested exemption from the 

requirement of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) 

concerning prior written notification to 

the NRC for periodic transfers made in 

accordance with the exemption request. 

The underlying purpose of notifying the 

NRC prior to the use of funds from the 

NDT is to provide the opportunity for 

NRC intervention, when deemed 

necessary, if the withdrawals are for 

expenses other than those authorized by 

10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) and 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8) that could result in there 

being insufficient funds in the DTF to 

accomplish radiological 

decommissioning of the facilities. 

Pursuant to the requirements in 10 

CFR 50.75(f)(1), licensees are required to 

monitor and report to the NRC every 

two years, the status of the NDT funds 

for Salem, Hope Creek, and Peach 

Bottom. These reports provide the NRC 

staff with awareness of, and the ability 

to take action on, any actual or potential 

funding deficiencies. As previously 

discussed, PSEG proposed that the 

exemption be subject to certain 

conditions, including that the DFS 

reports submitted under 10 CFR 

50.75(f)(1) will include the amount of 

funds transferred into the ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts since the last submitted 

report. By granting the exemption to 10 

CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) and 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), subject to this 

condition, the NRC staff considers that 

withdrawals consistent with the 

licensee’s submittal dated May 28, 2024, 

are authorized. The NRC staff finds that 

the additional reporting provided by 

PSEG’s proposed condition would 

provide similar information to the NRC 

as the prior notification requirement in 

10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) and is, therefore, 

not necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the regulation. 

The requested exemption would not 

allow the use of funds from the PSEG 

NDTs for any purpose that is not 

currently authorized in the regulations 

without prior notification to the NRC. In 

addition, the existing reporting 

requirement in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) 

allows the NRC staff to continually 

monitor the status of funding for 

radiological decommissioning and 

provides the opportunity for the NRC to 

take appropriate actions, if needed. 

Additionally, the exemption does not 

change the requirement that any 

shortfall in funding assurance identified 

in a DFS report be corrected by the time 

the next report is due. Therefore, the 

granting of the exemption to 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the PSEG to 

make periodic transfers, as described in 

the exemption request, to subaccounts 

within the PSEG NDTs to cover 

authorized expenses for 

decommissioning activities other than 

radiological decommissioning of Salem, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
107176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 

Hope Creek, and Peach Bottom without 

prior written notification to the NRC 

will still meet the underlying purpose of 

the regulation. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

NRC staff concludes that the underlying 

purposes of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 

10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) would be 

achieved by allowing PSEG to transfer 

excess earnings to ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts and use the funding for 

MRC disposal during operations, spent 

fuel management, and site restoration 

activities at Salem, Hope Creek, and 

Peach Bottom without prior NRC 

notification. Accordingly, the NRC staff 

finds that the special circumstance of 10 

CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) is present in the 

particular circumstances of Hope Creek, 

Salem, and Peach Bottom. 

Special circumstances, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), are present 

whenever compliance would result in 

undue hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated. 

As discussed above, the licensee 

states, and the NRC staff confirmed, that 

the overarching NDT accounts for Hope 

Creek, Salem, and Peach Bottom contain 

funds in excess of the estimated costs of 

radiological decommissioning of the 

facilities, as described in the individual 

SSDCEs. PSEG states that if funds 

accumulated in ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts (i.e., subaccounts dedicated 

to non-radiological decommissioning 

activities) cannot be used for their 

intended purpose, then the licensee 

would need to obtain additional funds 

to pay for activities that would not be 

recoverable from the NDT or modify 

operations at the facilities to avoid or 

delay such costs until final radiological 

decommissioning has been completed. 

In its exemption request, PSEG 

describes the history of each facility’s 

dedicated DTF and states that more 

funds in the NDT have been dedicated 

for radiological decommissioning than 

originally intended through the ratesetting process. PSEG states that up 

until 2003, non-bypassable charges, 

authorized by the cognizant regulatory 

authority, were used as the funding 

mechanism for NDTs. These nonbypassable charges, as described in the 

request, were collected and intended for 

use to fund all aspects of 

decommissioning a facility, including 

radiological decommissioning, spent 

fuel management, and site restoration. 

Commencing in 2004, these units were 

no longer rate-regulated and, therefore, 

were no longer eligible to use the 

sinking fund method. Accordingly, the 

funding mechanism transitioned to the 

prepaid method. The NDT fund 

balances for each unit in 2004 that 

included funds for the entire 

decommissioning process were 

$212.16M for Salem, Unit 1, $195.35M 

for Salem, Unit 2, $324.44M for Hope 

Creek, $178.11M for Peach Bottom, Unit 

2, and $180.64M for Peach Bottom, Unit 

3. 

The resulting NDT funds became 

‘‘dedicated’’ to radiological 

decommissioning, as the total amounts 

were reported to the NRC as such in 

DFS reports. Based on its review of the 

application, the NRC staff finds that, 

though precise accounting that could be 

used to delineate the funding across the 

total decommissioning project was not 

maintained by the licensee, it appears 

that some excess funding in the NDT 

was initially dedicated to activities 

other than radiological 

decommissioning as defined in 10 CFR 

50.2 through the rate-setting process. 

In addition, in its exemption request, 

PSEG states, in relevant part, that, ‘‘The 

current environment in which a 

permanent federal repository for spent 

fuel does not exist requires PSEG to 

provide long-term storage for spent fuel 

in the onsite independent spent fuel 

storage installations. Not granting the 

requested exemptions to PSEG would 

impose costs in excess of those incurred 

by other 10 CFR part 50 licensees that 

have requested and been granted 

exemptions from these regulations for 

similar purposes.’’ 

PSEG further states that, ‘‘[P]reventing 

the use of these funds in the NDT would 

impose an unnecessary and undue 

burden in excess of that contemplated 

when the regulation was adopted 

without any corresponding safety 

benefit. Therefore, strict compliance 

with the rule would result in an undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulations 

were adopted, or that are significantly in 

excess of those incurred by others 

similarly situated, and the special 

circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) 

are present.’’ 

The NRC has stated that funding for 

spent fuel management (and site 

restoration) activities may be 

commingled in the DTF, provided that 

the licensee is able to identify and 

account for the radiological 

decommissioning funds separately from 

the funds set aside for spent fuel 

management (and site restoration 

activities) (see NRC Regulatory Issue 

Summary 2001–07, Rev. 1, ‘‘10 CFR 

50.75 Reporting and Recordkeeping for 

Decommissioning Planning,’’ dated 

January 8, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML083440158), and Regulatory Guide 

1.184, Revision 1, ‘‘Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ dated October 

2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13144A840)). Preventing access to 

those excess funds in the NDT because 

spent fuel management (and site 

restoration) activities are not associated 

with radiological decommissioning 

would create an unnecessary financial 

burden without any corresponding 

safety benefit. The adequacy of the 

PSEG NDTs to cover the cost of 

activities associated with spent fuel 

management (and site restoration) for 

each of its units, in addition to 

radiological decommissioning, is 

supported by PSEG’s SSDCEs and 

associated analyses. If PSEG cannot use 

its NDTs for spent fuel management 

(and site restoration) activities, it would 

need to obtain additional funding that 

would not be recoverable from the DTF, 

or it would have to modify its 

decommissioning approach and 

methods. Based on the considerations 

described above, the NRC staff 

concludes that either outcome would 

impose an unnecessary and undue 

burden significantly in excess of that 

contemplated when 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) were adopted. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff finds that the 

special circumstance of 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(iii) is present. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

NRC staff concludes that the underlying 

purposes of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 

10 CFR 50.75(h)(1)(iv) would be 

achieved by allowing PSEG to transfer 

excess earnings to ‘‘non-50.75’’ 

subaccounts and use the funding for 

MRC disposal during operations, spent 

fuel management, and site restoration 

activities at Salem, Hope Creek, and 

Peach Bottom without prior NRC 

notification, and compliance with the 

regulations would result in an undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulations 

were adopted. Thus, the special 

circumstances required by 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) 

exist and support the approval of the 

requested exemption. 

E. Environmental Considerations 

The NRC staff considered whether 

there would be any significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed exemptions. For the 

proposed action, the NRC staff 

performed an environmental assessment 

(EA) pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The 

NRC determined that a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate, and an environmental 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 107177 

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). 

impact statement is not warranted. The 

EA and the FONSI were published on 

December 20,2024 in the Federal 

Register (89 FR 104236). 

IV. Conclusions 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a), the exemptions are authorized 

by law, will not present an undue risk 

to the public health and safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants PSEG 

exemptions from 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 

50.75(h)(1)(iv) to allow the periodic 

transfer of earnings from funds 

dedicated to radiological 

decommissioning, consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘decommission’’ in 10 CFR 

50.2, of Salem, Hope Creek, and Peach 

Bottom, to ‘‘non-50.75’’ subaccounts 

dedicated to other ‘‘decommissioning’’ 

activities, as defined in U.S. Department 

of Treasury regulations in 26 CFR 

1.468A–1(b)(6), without prior notice to 

the NRC subject to the following 

conditions: 

• Transfers are limited to earnings 

from funds dedicated for radiological 

decommissioning determined by an 

increase in the amount of funds 

accumulated in the NDT since the last 

decommissioning funding status (DFS) 

report submitted under 10 CFR 

50.75(f)(1). 

• At the time of the transfer, the 

amount of decommissioning funding 

assurance (DFA) provided by NDT 

funds, excluding funds held in the 

subaccounts, using the prepayment 

method in 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(i) must 

exceed the amount of DFA required by 

10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) for the 

associated station by at least $100 

million (nominal dollars). 

• DFS reports submitted under 10 

CFR 50.75(f)(1) will include the amount 

of funds transferred into the 

subaccounts since the last submitted 

report. 

The exemptions are effective upon 

issuance. The exemptions will expire on 

an individual reactor basis once the 

NRC has docketed the licensee’s 

certifications of permanent cessation of 

operations and permanent removal of 

fuel from the reactor vessel required 

under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) for 

the respective reactor unit, consistent 

with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). 

Dated: December 23, 2024. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jamie Pelton, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31369 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2025–937 and K2025–938; 

MC2025–938 and K2025–939; MC2025–939 

and K2025–940; MC2025–941 and K2025– 

942; MC2025–959 and K2025–958; MC2025– 

960 and K2025–959; MC2025–961 and 

K2025–960; MC2025–962 and K2025–961; 

MC2025–963 and K2025–962; MC2025–964 

and K2025–963; MC2025–965 and K2025– 

964; MC2025–966 and K2025–965; MC2025– 

967 and K2025–966; MC2025–968 and 

K2025–967; MC2025–969 and K2025–968; 

MC2025–970 and K2025–969; MC2025–971 

and K2025–970; MC2025–972 and K2025– 

971; MC2025–973 and K2025–972; MC2025– 

974 and K2025–973; MC2025–975 and 

K2025–974; MC2025–976 and K2025–975; 

MC2025–977 and K2025–976; MC2025–978 

and K2025–977; MC2025–979 and K2025– 

978; MC2025–980 and K2025–979; MC2025– 

981 and K2025–980; MC2025–982 and 

K2025–981; MC2025–983 and K2025–982; 

MC2025–984 and K2025–983; MC2025–985 

and K2025–984; MC2025–986 and K2025– 

985; MC2025–987 and K2025–986; MC2025– 

988 and K2025–987; MC2025–989 and 

K2025–988; MC2025–990 and K2025–989] 

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: January 2, 

2025. 

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. Public Proceeding(s) 

III. Summary Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the 

Commission gives notice that the Postal 

Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to Competitive negotiated service 

agreement(s). The request(s) may 

propose the addition of a negotiated 

service agreement from the Competitive 

product list or the modification of an 

existing product currently appearing on 

the Competitive product list. 

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

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, if any, that will be 

reviewed in a public proceeding as 

defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title 

of each such request, the request’s 

acceptance date, and the authority cited 

by the Postal Service for each request. 

For each such 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 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public 

Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each such request. 

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

identified in Section II, if any, are 

consistent with the policies of title 39. 

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 3041. 

Comment deadline(s) for each such 

request, if any, appear in Section II. 

Section III identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, if any, to add a 

standardized distinct product to the 

Competitive product list or to amend a 

standardized distinct product, the title 

of each such request, the request’s 

acceptance date, and the authority cited 

by the Postal Service for each request. 

Standardized distinct products are 

negotiated service agreements that are 

variations of one or more Competitive 

products, and for which financial 

models, minimum rates, and 

classification criteria have undergone 

advance Commission review. See 39 

CFR 3041.110(n); 39 CFR 3041.205(a). 

Such requests are reviewed in summary 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES