47984 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

1 39 CFR § 3020.31(a), (c). 

2 Id. § 3020.31(d). 

3 Id. § 3020.31(b). 

4 Id. § 3020.31(f). 

5 Id. § 3020.31(e). 

6 Id. § 3015.5(a). 

7 Id. § 3015.5(b). 

they reflect a consensus industry 

perspective. However, the comment 

period provided in the June 20 Federal 

Register Notice is insufficient given the 

volume of material and need for a 

thorough technical review. Extending 

the comment period would provide the 

time necessary to fully assess the impact 

of these proposed changes and arrive at 

a set of comments that are of value to 

the NRC staff.’’

Response to Request 

The request for an extension to the 

comment period is denied. 

The information contained in DG–

1200 regarding internal fire and external 

events has been available to the public 

prior to the issuance of DG–1200 in June 

of 2008 for public comment. Therefore, 

DG–1200 does not ‘‘represent a 

significant expansion over the current 

Revision [Revision 1] by including 

detailed technical information on fire 

and external events PRAs.’’

DG–1200 provides high level 

discussions on what constitutes a 

technically acceptable Level 1 and Level 

2 PRA for internal and external events, 

which has been in the previous 

revisions of the guide. Specifically, the 

information for external events in DG–

1200 has not changed since the previous 

revision. The information for internal 

fires in DG–1200 was revised from the 

previous revision; however, the 

information is high level and was 

revised to be consistent with the 

standard (i.e., there was not anything 

added to the DG–1200 that was new or 

differing from the standard). 

With regard to the internal fire 

standard (Part 3 of the ASME/ANS RA–

S–2008 standard), as documented in 

DG–1200, the staff has no objections to 

the majority of the standard’s 

requirements. The staff has continually 

noted its position during development 

of the standard and in a formal letter to 

ASME in November 2007 (ADAMS 

(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html), under Accession No. 

073030364), and in an April 2008 

interoffice letter from M. Cunningham 

to C. Lui (ADAMS under Accession No. 

080880202) which are publicly 

available. 

The staff issued DG–1138 in 

September 2004 which provided the 

staff position on Revision 0 of the 

American Nuclear Society (ANS) 

external events standard. Revision 1 of 

the ANS standard (which is Part 4 of the 

ASME/ANS RA–S–2008 PRA standard) 

addressed the majority of the staff 

objections. The staff position in DG–

1200, for the objections not addressed in 

Part 4 of the ASME/ANS RA–S–2008 

standard, is unchanged from DG–1138. 

Requests for technical information 

about DG–1200 may be directed to the 

NRC contact, Mary Drouin at (301) 415–

6675 or e-mail to Mary.Drouin@nrc.gov. 

Electronic copies of DG–1200 are 

available through the NRC’s public Web 

site under Draft Regulatory Guides in 

the ‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ collection of 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. Electronic copies are also 

available in ADAMS (http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html), 

under Accession No. ML081200566. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), which is 

located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR’s mailing 

address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. The PDR can also be 

reached by telephone at (301) 415–4737 

or (800) 397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–

3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of August 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stephen C. O’Connor, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development 

Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E8–18920 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Request of the Postal Service To Add 

Express Mail Contract to Competitive 

Product List 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

request of the Postal Service to add a 

new product (Express Mail Contract) to 

the competitive product list. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr., 202–268–2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal 

Service in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. is filing 

a Request before the Postal Regulatory 

Commission, the addition of a new 

product, Express Mail Contract 1, to the 

competitive product list of the Mail 

Classification Schedule. As required by 

39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1), the Request is 

being published in the Federal Register. 

The Request is set out below. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, FOIA/Privacy and Government 

Relations. 

Before the Postal Regulatory 

Commission 

Washington, DC 20268–0001 

[Docket No. MC2008–5] 

Modification of the Mail Classification 

Schedule; Addition to Competitive 

Product Category; Express Mail 

Contract 1 

Request of the United States Postal 

Service To Add Express Mail Contract 

to Competitive Product List and Notice 

of Establishment of Rates and Class Not 

of General Applicability 

July 21, 2008. 

In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 

and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the United 

States Postal Service hereby requests 

modification of the Mail Classification 

Schedule product list. The Postal 

Service proposes to add Express Mail 

Contract 1 to the competitive product 

list.1 This is a competitive product not 

of general applicability within the 

meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3).2 A 

redacted version of the Governors’

Decision establishing the price and 

classification and a certification of the 

Governors’ vote is provided in 

Attachment A.3 Attachment B shows the 

requested changes in the Mail 

Classification product list with the 

addition in brackets.4 Attachment C 

provides a statement of supporting 

justification for this request, as specified 

in 39 CFR 3020.32.5

As explained in the supporting 

justification, the Postal Service believes 

that it is appropriate to add this contract 

to the list of competitive products. The 

Commission should therefore approve 

this request as set forth in its rules. As 

required by 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1), this 

Request is being published in the 

Federal Register . 

The Postal Service also gives notice, 

pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 

CFR 3015.5, that the Governors have 

established prices and classifications 

not of general applicability for this 

contract.6 The prices and class are to be 

effective one day after the Commission 

approves the required addition to the 

product list.7 An explanation and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47985 

8 Id. 

9 Id. § 3015.5(c)(1). 

10 Id. § 3015.5(c)(2). 

11See Order No. 86, Order Concerning Global 

Expedited Package Services Contract, Docket No. 

CP2008–5, June 27, 2008, at 7. 

justification is provided in the 

Governors’ Decision and accompanying 

analysis, which are being filed in 

unredacted version under seal.8 Also, 

being filed under seal are the required 

cost and revenue data 9 and certification 

of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(1) 

and (3).10

While aware that the Commission 

intends to address broader 

confidentiality issues in the future,11 the 

Postal Service maintains that the 

contract, related financial information, 

the customer’s name and the portions of 

the Governors’ Decision and 

accompanying analysis that provides 

prices, terms, and conditions should 

remain confidential. The contract 

contains pricing and other information 

related to the customer and its processes 

as well as to Postal Service processes 

and procedures for handling the mail 

tendered under the contract. Related 

financial information contains cost and 

pricing information underlying the 

contract. Prices and other contract terms 

relating to the parties’ processes and 

procedures are highly confidential in 

the business world and the Postal 

Service protects them in accordance 

with industry standards. The ability of 

the Postal Service to negotiate such 

contracts would be severely 

compromised if prices and other 

information pertaining to these types of 

agreements were publicly disclosed. 

Also, public disclosure would 

compromise the ability of the customer 

to negotiate favorable shipping services 

contracts in the future. The name of the 

customer should remain confidential 

due to the substantial likelihood that the 

Postal Service’s competitors would use 

such information to target their efforts 

and undercut the Postal Service’s prices. 

The Postal Service is aware of no 

competitor or private company of 

comparable size and scope that releases 

similar information to the public. 

Respectfully submitted, 

United States Postal Service, 

By its attorneys: 

Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr., 

Chief Counsel, Ratemaking, 

Scott L. Reiter, 

475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20260–1137, 

(202) 268–2999, Fax–5402, 

scott.l.reiter@usps.gov, 

July 21, 2008. 

ATTACHMENT A to Postal Service 

Request 

Docket No. MC2008–5 

Redacted Governors’ Decision 

Decision of the Governors of the United 

States Postal Service on Establishment 

of Rate and Class Not of General 

Applicability for Express Mail Service 

(Governors’ Decision No. 08–9) 

July 16, 2008. 

Statement of Explanation and 

Justification 

The Postal Service and* * * have 

entered into a shipping services contract 

that provides specialized pricing 

for* * * use of Express Mail service. 

Accordingly, pursuant to our authority 

under section 3632 of title 39, as 

amended by the Postal Accountability 

and Enhancement Act of 2006 

(‘‘PAEA’’), we establish a new price not 

of general applicability, and such 

changes in classifications as are 

necessary to implement the new price. 

Under the contract,* * * The 

contract is for three years.* * * 

We have reviewed management’s 

analysis of the contract, which is 

attached. We have evaluated the new 

price and classification changes in this 

context in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 

3632–3633 and 39 CFR 3015.5 and 

3015.7. We approve the changes, finding 

that they are appropriate, and are 

consistent with the regulatory criteria, 

as indicated by management. 

Order 

We direct management to file with the 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

appropriate notice of these classification 

and rate changes and to request any 

needed addition to the competitive 

product list. The changes in price and 

class set forth herein shall be effective 

one day after the Commission approves 

any required addition to the product list 

under 39 CFR 3020 Subpart B. 

By The Governors: 

Alan C. Kessler lllllllllll

Chairman 

Analysis of the Express Mail Service 

Contract with* * * 

Under the terms of the Postal 

Service’s Express Mail contract 

with.* * * 

* * * The customized features 

included in this contract will make the 

pieces less costly for the Postal Service 

than the average Express Mail 

piece.* * * 

Based on the estimated increase in 

contribution from this contract, in light 

of anticipated costs and volumes, this 

contract will cover its attributable cost 

(39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(2)) and will result in 

competitive products as a whole 

complying with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a)(3), 

which, as implemented by 39 CFR 

3015.7(c), requires competitive products 

to contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent 

to the Postal Service’s total institutional 

costs. Accordingly, no issue of 

subsidization of competitive products 

by market dominant products arises (39 

U.S.C. 3633(a)(1)). 

MAIL CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE 

PART B—COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS 

2000 COMPETITIVE PRODUCT LIST 

NEGOTIATED SERVICE 

AGREEMENTS 

Domestic 

[Express Mail Contract 1] 

Statement of Supporting Justification 

I, Kim Parks, Manager, Sales and 

Communications, Expedited Shipping, 

am sponsoring this request that the 

Commission add Express Mail Contract 

1 to the list of competitive products. 

This statement supports the Postal 

Service’s request by providing the 

information required by each applicable 

subsection of 39 CFR 3020.32. I attest to 

the accuracy of the information 

contained herein. 

(a) Demonstrate why the change is in 

accordance with the policies and 

applicable criteria of the Act. 

As demonstrated below, the change 

complies with the applicable statutory 

provisions. 

(b) Explain why, as to the market 

dominant products, the change is not 

inconsistent with each requirement of 

39 U.S.C. 3622(d), and that it advances 

the objectives of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b), 

taking into account the factors of 39 

U.S.C. 3622(c). 

Not applicable. The Postal Service is 

proposing that this Express Mail 

contract be added to the competitive 

products list. 

(c) Explain why, as to competitive 

products, the addition, deletion, or 

transfer will not result in the violation 

of any of the standards of 39 U.S.C. 

3633. 

The service to be provided under the 

contract will cover its attributable costs 

and make a positive contribution to 

coverage of institutional costs. The 

contract will increase contribution 

toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the 

Postal Service’s total institutional costs. 

Accordingly, no issue of subsidization 

of competitive products by market 

dominant products arises (39 U.S.C. 

3633(a)(1)). 

(d) Verify that the change does not 

classify as competitive a product over 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

47986 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

which the Postal Service exercises 

sufficient market power that it can 

without risk of losing a significant level 

of business to other firms offering 

similar products: (1) Set the price of 

such product substantially above costs, 

(2) raise prices significantly; (3) 

decrease quality; or (4) decrease output. 

The contract sets specific terms and 

conditions for providing Express Mail 

service to the customer. Express Mail is 

provided in a highly competitive 

market. The Postal Service is unable to 

set prices substantially above costs, 

raise prices significantly, decrease 

quality, or decrease output, without 

losing this business to private 

competitors in the expedited shipping 

market. 

In negotiating this contract, the Postal 

Service’s bargaining position was 

constrained by the existence of other 

providers of services similar to the 

Postal Service’s. As such, the market 

precludes the Postal Service from taking 

unilateral action to increase prices or 

decrease service. As with Express Mail 

service in general, the Postal Service 

may not decrease quality or output 

without risking the loss of business to 

competitors that offer similar expedited 

delivery services. The market does not 

allow the Postal Service to raise prices 

or offer prices substantially above costs; 

rather, the contract is premised on 

prices and terms that provide sufficient 

incentive for the customer to ship with 

the Postal Service rather than a 

competitor. 

(e) Explain whether or not each 

product that is the subject of the request 

is covered by the postal monopoly as 

reserved to the Postal Service under 189 

U.S.C. 1696, subject to the exceptions 

set forth in 39 U.S.C. 601. 

I am advised that Express Mail service 

and this contract are not covered by 

these provisions. See part (d) above. 

(f) Provide a description of the 

availability and nature of enterprises in 

the private sector engaged in the 

delivery of the product. 

See part (d) above. Expedited 

shipping, including guaranteed 

overnight shipping, is widely available 

from well-known and successful private 

firms at both published and contract 

prices. 

(g) Provide any available information 

of the views of those who use the 

product on the appropriateness of the 

proposed modification. 

Having entered into this contract with 

the Postal Service, the customer 

supports the addition of the contract to 

the product list so that the contractual 

terms can be effectuated. 

(h) Provide a description of the likely 

impact of the proposed modification on 

small business concerns. 

The market for expedited delivery 

services is highly competitive and 

requires a substantial infrastructure to 

support a national network. Large 

shipping companies serve this market. 

The Postal Service is unaware of any 

small business concerns that could offer 

comparable service for this customer. 

(i) Include such other information, 

data, and such statements of reasons 

and bases, as are necessary and 

appropriate to fully inform the 

Commission of the nature, scope, 

significance, and impact of the proposed 

modification. 

Additional details regarding the terms 

of the contract have been provided to 

the Commission under seal due to the 

sensitivity of the contract to both the 

customer and the Postal Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18887 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–58326; File No. SR–CBOE–

2008–82] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Its Rules 

Related to the Hybrid Agency Liaison 

and the Complex Order RFQ Auction 

August 7, 2008. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on July 31, 

2008, the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated ( ‘‘Exchange’’ or 

‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Exchange filed the proposal as a ‘‘noncontroversial’’ proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of 

the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 

thereunder.4 The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to modify 

Rule 6.14, Hybrid Agency Liaison (HAL), 

so that the order eligibility requirements 

mirror the requirements for the 

Exchange’s Rule 6.13A, Simple Auction 

Liaison (SAL). The Exchange also 

proposes a similar modification to Rule 

6.53C(d), Process for Complex Order 

RFR Auction (‘‘COA’’), so that the 

Exchange may determine eligible 

complex order type and eligible 

complex order origin code for COA on 

a class-by-class basis. The text of the 

proposed rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s Web site (http:// 

www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange’s 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of 

and basis for the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

HAL and COA are features within 

CBOE’s Hybrid System. In classes where 

HAL and/or COA are activated, eligible 

orders are electronically exposed for an 

exposure period. During the applicable 

exposure period, the orders that are 

subject to exposure are eligible to 

receive a better price. At the conclusion 

of the HAL or COA process, as 

applicable, the order is then allocated 

or, to the extent not executed, booked or 

routed as described in the relevant 

rules. 

HAL exposes eligible simple orders 

for price improvement. For HAL, an 

eligible order is currently an order in an 

option class designated by the Exchange 

that is (i) a market order or limit order 

that is marketable against the 

Exchange’s disseminated quotation 

while that quotation is not at the 

national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’); (ii) 

a limit order that would improve the 

Exchange’s disseminated quotation and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES