27372 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

3Requesters should note that the filing 

requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC 

staff determinations (because they must be served 

on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.3

I. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI, and motions for protective 

orders, in a timely fashion in order to 

minimize any unnecessary delays in 

identifying those petitioners who have 

standing and who have propounded 

contentions meeting the specificity and 

basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. 

Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes 

the general target schedule for 

processing and resolving requests under 

these procedures. 

It is so ordered. Dated at Rockville, 

Maryland, this 10th day of May, 2010. 

For the Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Attachment 1—General Target 

Schedule for Processing and Resolving 

Requests for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information in This Proceeding 

Day Event/Activity 

0 ........................ Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 

10 ...................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: 

Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order 

for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 

60 ...................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation 

does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 ...................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access 

provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs 

any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing 

(preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 

25 ...................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling 

to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief 

Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any 

party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to 

file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ...................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ...................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and 

file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure 

Agreement for SUNSI. 

A ....................... If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access 

to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a 

final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 ................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. 

A + 28 ............... Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days 

remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as

established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later 

deadline. 

A + 53 ............... (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 

A + 60 ............... (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 ............. Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11560 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–252; NRC–2009–0557] 

University of New Mexico; University 

of New Mexico AGN–201M Reactor; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is considering issuance of a renewed 

Facility Operating License No. R–102, to 

the University of New Mexico (the 

licensee), which would authorize 

continued operation of the University of 

New Mexico AGN–201M reactor, 

located in Albuquerque, Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico. Therefore, as 

required by Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the 

NRC is issuing this Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would renew 

Facility Operating License No. R–102 

for a period of twenty years from the 

date of issuance of the renewed license. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

February 21, 2007, as supplemented by 

letter dated November 9, 2009. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the 

existing license remains in effect until 

the NRC takes final action on the 

renewal application. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

allow the continued operation of the 

AGN–201M reactor to routinely provide 

teaching, research, and services to 

numerous institutions for a period of 

twenty years. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27373 

issue a renewed Facility Operating 

License No. R–102 to allow continued 

operation of the AGN–201M reactor and 

concludes there is reasonable assurance 

that the AGN–201M reactor will 

continue to operate safely for the 

additional period of time. The details of 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided with the renewed license that 

will be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving its license renewal 

application. This document contains the 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed action. 

The University of New Mexico is 

located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

The AGN–201M reactor is housed in the 

Nuclear Energy Laboratory (NEL) 

located near the southwest corner of the 

University campus. The NEL is 

primarily surrounded by residential 

areas to the west and south and the 

University campus to the east and north. 

According to the 2000 census, the 

population density within a radial 

distance of one mile from the NEL is 

5,352.9 persons per square mile. The 

nearest permanent residence is 160 

meters (174 yards) from the site and the 

nearest dormitory is 724 meters (792 

yards). 

The NEL is a one-story concrete 

structure with six feet of earth between 

one foot thick concrete walls on the 

south and west sides. The north and 

east walls are poured concrete 

approximately one foot thick. The roof 

of the building is three feet of earth 

between five-inch thick concrete slabs. 

A portion of the roof is five feet of earth 

between five-inch thick concrete slabs. 

The only outside windows in the 

building are located in the entrance 

doors. 

The AGN–201M reactor is a solid, 

homogeneous thermal reactor, used for 

teaching and training of students. The 

reactor is operated in a sealed container 

at a maximum licensed power of 5.0 

watts. The reactor core uses graphitecoated uranium microspheres enriched 

in uranium-235, dispersed in a 

polyethylene matrix. The reactor core 

consists of nine fuel discs that are 

separated at the mid-plane by a thin 

aluminum baffle. Because of the small 

fissile material content and low 

operation power level, the fission 

product inventory in the core is 

negligible. The core is contained in a 

gas-tight aluminum cylindrical tank. 

The AGN–201M reactor has two safety 

rods, one coarse control rod, and one 

fine control rod. The two safety rods 

and the coarse control rod are fuelloaded while the loading of the fine 

control rod depends on the standard 

loading in use at the time. In all cases, 

inserting a rod adds reactivity to the 

system. 

The licensee has not requested any 

changes to the facility design or 

operating conditions as part of this 

renewal request. Therefore, the 

proposed action should not increase the 

probability or consequences of 

accidents. No changes are being made in 

the types of effluents that may be 

released off site. There should be no 

increase in occupational or public 

radiation exposure. Therefore, license 

renewal should not change the 

environmental impact of facility 

operation. Data from the last five years 

of operation was assessed to determine 

the projected radiological impact of the 

facility on the environment during the 

period of the renewed license. Based on 

this evaluation, the NRC staff concluded 

that continued operation of the reactor 

should not have a significant 

environmental impact. 

I. Radiological Impact 

No environmental effects should 

result from use of this reactor. The 

AGN–201M reactor has a dry core of 

uranium-impregnated polyethylene, 

sealed in an aluminum tank. Because of 

the form of the fuel and the lack of 

fission product inventory, failure of 

equipment or release of the fuel to the 

outside environment will not directly or 

indirectly endanger the public health 

and safety. A probabilistic risk 

assessment review of the reactor (ANS 

Transactions, Vol. 65, p. 132–133, 1992) 

indicated that ‘‘in the unlikely event of 

release to the environment, a total 

whole body dose rate of 1.61 × 10¥5

mrem/sec in the form of a radioactive 

plume has been calculated for persons 

located in the vicinity.’’ This indicates 

that even the maximum hypothetical 

release accident does not endanger the 

public health and safety. 

The core is surrounded by a 20 cm 

thick high density (1.75 gram/cm3) 

graphite reflector followed by a 10 cm 

thick lead gamma shield. The core and 

part of the graphite reflector are sealed 

in a fluid-tight aluminum core tank 

designed to contain any fission gases 

that might leak from the core. A review 

of the licensee’s annual reports from 

2000–2007, excluding the report for the 

period July 2002 through June 2003 

which was not available, reveals that 

there was no liquid radioactive waste 

released from the facility nor was there 

any solid waste released. In addition, no 

environmental radiation surveys were 

required to be performed outside of the 

facility. 

Personnel exposures received during 

the same time period were below 50 

mrem per person with the majority of 

the personnel receiving below 5 mrem. 

No changes in reactor operation that 

would lead to an increase in 

occupational dose are expected as a 

result of license renewal. 

Radiation monitoring instrumentation 

available to the reactor operators 

includes console-mounted meters and a 

portable survey meter. There are remote 

area monitors with automatic alarms 

installed to monitor gamma levels at the 

reactor console, checkpoint three (the 

south side of the reactor), reactor top, 

and in the general lab area (near the east 

door). All of the detectors are energycompensated Geiger Mueller tubes. 

There will be no changes to the licensed 

program that would affect off-site 

radiation and contamination levels. 

II. Non-Radiological Impact 

The AGN–201M reactor is 

conductively cooled and requires no 

liquid or auxiliary cooling system. The 

removable thermal column tank permits 

access to the core tank. The thermal 

column tank is normally filled with 

water to provide shielding. The tank can 

be filled with graphite if a thermal 

column is desired. The steel thermal 

column tank acts as secondary 

containment for the core tank and is 

fluid tight. The water tank is the third 

and outermost of the fluid tight 

containers. It is 198 cm in diameter and 

made of steel. It holds 1000 gallons of 

water and forms the fast neutron shield. 

The water in the tank contains 

chromium. To date, the water has never 

been removed from the tank and there 

are no plans to do so. The water will be 

drained in the event the reactor is 

decommissioned and removal of the 

water will be handled by University of 

New Mexico Radiation Safety. Finally, 

there is a 60 cm concrete block shield 

on the front of the reactor tank and 40 

cm concrete block shields on the sides 

and back. There is no shielding on the 

top of the reactor tank. 

Release of thermal effluents from the 

AGN–201M reactor will not have a 

significant effect on the environment. 

Environmental Effects of Accidents 

Accident scenarios are discussed in 

Appendix A of the University of New 

Mexico’s Safety Analysis Report. The 

maximum hypothetical accident is a 

nuclear excursion resulting from a 2% 

instantaneous increase of reactivity. The 

total radiation dose to a person next to 

the reactor would be approximately one 

rem; therefore, the worst-case 

occupational doses resulting from this 

accident would be below the limit of 5 

rem or 0.05 Sieverts (Sv) specified in 10 

CFR 20.1201. Worst-case doses to 

members of the general public would be 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27374 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

below the limit of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) 

specified in 10 CFR 20.1301. The 

proposed action will not increase the 

probability or consequences of 

accidents. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Considerations 

I. Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The site occupied by the AGN–201M 

reactor does not contain any Federallyor State-protected fauna or flora, nor do 

the AGN–201M reactor effluents impact 

the habitats of any such fauna or flora. 

II. Costal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) 

The site occupied by the AGN–201M 

reactor is not located within any 

managed coastal zones, nor do the 

AGN–201M reactor effluents impact any 

managed costal zones. 

III. National Historical Preservation Act 

(NHPA) 

The NHPA requires Federal agencies 

to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. The 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) lists several historical sites near 

the AGN–201M reactor site. The nearest 

historical site is Cottage Bakery, located 

approximately 0.1 miles from the AGN– 

201M reactor site boundary. Given the 

distance between the facility and 

Cottage Bakery, continued operation of 

the AGN–201M reactor will not impact 

this historical site. 

IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(FWCA) 

The licensee is not planning any 

water resource development projects, 

including any of the modifications 

relating to impounding a body of water, 

damming, diverting a stream or river, 

deepening a channel, irrigation, or 

altering a body of water for navigation 

or drainage. 

V. Executive Order 12898— 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice impact 

analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations that could result from the 

relicensing and the continued operation 

of the AGN–201M reactor. 

Disproportionately high and adverse 

human health effects occur when the 

risk or rate of exposure to an 

environmental hazard for a minority or 

low-income population is significant 

and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for 

the general population or for another 

appropriate comparison group. 

Disproportionately high environmental 

effects are impacts or risk of impacts on 

the natural or physical environment in 

a minority or low-income community 

that are significant and appreciably 

exceed the environmental impact on the 

larger community. Such effects may 

include ecological, cultural, economic, 

or social impacts. Minority and lowincome populations are subsets of the 

general public residing in the vicinity of 

the AGN–201M reactor, and all are 

exposed to the same health and 

environmental effects generated from 

activities at the AGN–201M reactor. 

Minority Populations in the Vicinity 

of the AGN–201M reactor—According to 

2000 census data, 51.9 percent of the 

population (approximately 748,000 

individuals) residing within a 50-mile 

radius of the AGN–201M reactor 

identified themselves as minority 

individuals. The largest minority group 

was Hispanic or Latino (310,000 persons 

or 41.4 percent), followed by ‘‘Some 

other race’’ (141,500 or about 18.9 

percent). According to the U.S. Census 

Bureau, about 51.7 percent of the 

Bernalillo County population identified 

themselves as minorities, with persons 

of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising 

the largest minority group (42.0 

percent). According to census data 3- 

year average estimates for 2005–2007, 

the minority population of Bernalillo 

County, as a percent of total population, 

had increased to 55.6 percent. 

Low-Income Populations in the 

Vicinity of the AGN–201M reactor— 

According to 2000 census data, 

approximately 19,900 families and 

100,800 individuals (approximately 10.4 

and 13.5 percent, respectively) residing 

within a 50-mile radius of the AGN– 

201M reactor were identified as living 

below the Federal poverty threshold in 

1999. The 1999 Federal poverty 

threshold was $17,029 for a family of 

four. 

According to Census data in the 

2005–2007 American Community 

Survey 3-Year Estimates, the median 

household income for New Mexico was 

$41,042, while 18.4 percent of the state 

population and 14.2 percent of families 

were determined to be living below the 

Federal poverty threshold. Bernalillo 

County had a higher median household 

income average ($45,022) and lower 

percentages (14.9 percent) of 

individuals and families (11.1 percent) 

living below the poverty level, 

respectively. 

Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

would mostly consist of radiological 

effects; however, radiation doses from 

continued operations associated with 

the license renewal are expected to 

continue at current levels and would be 

well below regulatory limits. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

environmental assessment, the proposed 

relicensing would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations residing in the vicinity of 

the AGN–201M reactor. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to license renewal, 

the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action. If the Commission 

denied the application for license 

renewal, facility operations would end 

and decommissioning would be 

required with no significant impact on 

the environment. The environmental 

impacts of license renewal and this 

alternative action are similar. In 

addition, the benefits of teaching, 

research, and services provided by 

facility operation would be lost. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The proposed action does not involve 

the use of any different resources or 

significant quantities of resources 

beyond those previously considered in 

the issuance of the original Facility 

Operating License R–102 for the 

University of New Mexico AGN–201M 

dated September, 1966; and the 

issuance of Amendment No. 10 to R– 

102, which authorized the power uprate 

to 5.0 W(t) dated January 18, 1973. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with the Commission’s 

stated policy, on November 25, 2009, 

the staff consulted with the State of New 

Mexico’s State Liaison Officer, regarding 

the environmental impact of the 

proposed action. A copy of the draft 

environmental assessment was provided 

to the State Liaison Officer for review. 

In a memorandum dated December 22, 

2009, the Director of the Environmental 

Health Division of the State’s 

Department of the Environment 

responded, expressing the State’s 

support for the continued operation of 

the facility. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27375 

1Press Release No. 10–018, United States Postal 

Service, Postal Service Outlines 10–Year Plan to 

Address Declining Revenues, Volumes (March 2, 

2010). 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s 

application dated February 21, 2007 

[ML092170540], as supplemented by the 

letter dated November 9, 2009 

[ML093410385]. Documents may be 

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (1st Floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the NRC 

Web site http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Persons who do not 

have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or 

send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of May, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing 

Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11563 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. PI2010–3; Order No. 456] 

Postal Rate Case Management 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is seeking 

comments relevant to management of an 

anticipated exigent postal rate case. It 

has scheduled a technical conference for 

a public discussion based on the 

submissions. 

DATES: Comments are due: June 9, 2010; 

technical conference will be held: June 

16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot 

submit their views electronically should 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by telephone for advice on alternatives 

to electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Public Representative 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On March 2, 2010, Postmaster General 

John E. Potter outlined elements of a 

business plan designed to close a 

projected gap between Postal Service 

revenues and costs.1 Included in the 

plan was a reference to a possible 

‘‘modest exigent rate increase’’ to be 

effective in 2011. Id. The term ‘‘exigent 

rate increase’’ is commonly used to refer 

to rate adjustments that are due to 

extraordinary or exceptional 

circumstances. Such rate adjustments 

are expressly authorized by 39 U.S.C. 

3622(d)(1)(E). 

Following the issuance of the Postal 

Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(PAEA), Pub. L. 109–435, 120 Stat. 3218 

(2006), the Commission adopted new 

rules that establish procedures for 

handling exigent rate cases. Docket No. 

RM2007–1, October 29, 2007 (Order No. 

43). Those new rules (Exigent Rate Case 

Rules) are contained in subpart E of part 

3010 of the Commission’s regulations. 

39 CFR part 3010, subpart E. 

If filed, the potential exigent rate case 

referred to by the Postmaster General 

would be the first exigent rate case 

received by the Commission since 

passage of the PAEA. While the 

Commission is confident that its Exigent 

Rate Case Rules will provide an 

effective procedural framework for 

consideration of the currently 

anticipated case, the Commission 

believes that it would be prudent to give 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

explore and discuss procedural 

considerations unique to exigent rate 

cases before the Postal Service files such 

a case. This belief is grounded in part 

on the fact that section 3622(d)(1)(E) 

requires the Commission to issue a 

decision within 90 days after the Postal 

Service’s filing. Advance consideration 

of the unique procedural aspects of the 

proposed exigent rate case may permit 

early identification of solutions to any 

potential issues that might otherwise 

complicate fair and meaningful 

participation by interested persons. 

In light of the foregoing 

considerations, a technical conference is 

scheduled for June 16, 2010, beginning 

at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission’s 

hearing room. The purpose of the 

conference is to give interested persons 

the opportunity to discuss procedures 

for managing the Postal Service’s 

currently anticipated exigent rate case. 

The proceedings will be transcribed, 

and a copy of the transcript will be 

posted on the Commission’s website. 

Further procedures are under 

consideration and may be announced by 

further public notice. Finally, the 

Commission invites interested persons 

to file proposed topics for discussion at 

the conference not later than June 9, 

2010. 

II. Public Representative 

Section 505 of title 39 requires the 

designation of an officer of the 

Commission in all public proceedings to 

represent the interests of the general 

public. The Commission hereby 

designates James Waclawski as Public 

Representative in this proceeding. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. Docket No. PI2010-3 is established 

for the purpose of facilitating discussion 

of and obtaining views on, procedural 

matters pertaining to rate adjustments 

proposed to meet exigent circumstances 

under part 3010, subpart E of the 

commission’s rules of practice. 

2. A technical conference will be held 

June 16, 2010, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

in the Commission’s hearing room to 

discuss issues related to the matters that 

are the subject of this proceeding. 

3. Interested persons may sunbmit 

proposed topics for discussion on or 

before June 9, 2010. 

4. James Waclawski is designated as 

the Public Representative to represent 

the interests of the general public in this 

docket. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11467 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. MC2010–24; Order No. 457] 

Review of Nonpostal Services 

Language 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

establishing a docket to consider the 

Postal Service’s proposed nonpostal 

services Mail Classification Schedule 

language. It solicits comments to assist 

in this task. 

DATES: Comments are due: June 4, 2010. 

Reply comments are due: June 18, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES