26744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 

1 Docket No. MC2009–25, Request of the United 

States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 

Group to Competitive Product List, May 19, 2009 

(Request). 

2 Docket Nos. CP2009–30 through CP2009–34, 

Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not of 

General Applicability, May 19, 2009 (Notices). 

3Attachment 1 to the Request consists of the 

redacted Decision of the Governors of the United 

States Postal Service on Establishment of Rates and 

Classes Not of General Applicability for Priority 

Mail Contract Group (Governors’ Decision No. 09– 

6). The Governors’ Decision includes two 

attachments. Attachment A shows the requested 

changes to the Mail Classification Schedule product 

list. Attachment B provides an analysis of the 

proposed Priority Mail Contract Group. Attachment 

2 provides a statement of supporting justification 

for this Request. Attachment 3 provides the 

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

4The contracts in Docket Nos. CP2009–30, 

CP2009–31 and CP2009–34 become effective on the 

day the Commission issues all necessary regulatory 

approvals. The contracts in Docket Nos. CP2009–32 

and CP2009–33 become effective the day after the 

Commission issues all necessary regulatory 

approvals. 

5 In the alternative, the Commission construes the 

Postal Service’s Request as a proposal to add five 

separate products to the Competitive Product List. 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2009–25, CP2009–30, 

CP2009–31, CP2009–32, CP2009–33 and 

CP2009–34; Order No. 217] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add Priority Mail Contract Group to the 

Competitive Product List. The Postal 

Service has also filed five related 

contracts. This notice addresses 

procedural steps associated with these 

filings. 

DATES: Postal Service responses are due 

June 1, 2009. Comments are due June 8, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On May 19, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a formal request pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq. 

to add a new product entitled Priority 

Mail Contract Group to the Competitive 

Product List.1 The Postal Service asserts 

that Priority Mail Contract Group is a 

competitive product ‘‘not of general 

applicability’’ within the meaning of 39 

U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). Id. at 1. The Request 

has been assigned Docket No. MC2009– 

25. 

Contemporaneously with Docket No. 

MC2009–25 and pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, the Postal 

Service filed five contracts which it 

identifies as Priority Mail Contract 6, 

Priority Mail Contract 7, Priority Mail 

Contract 8, Priority Mail Contract 9, and 

Priority Mail Contract 10. It believes 

these contracts are related to the 

proposed new product in Docket No. 

MC2009–25. These contracts have been 

assigned Docket Nos. CP2009–30 

through CP2009–34.2

Classification request. The Request 

incorporates (1) A redacted version of 

the Governors’ Decision authorizing the 

new product; (2) requested changes in 

the Mail Classification Schedule 

product list; (3) a statement of 

supporting justification as required by 

39 CFR 3020.32; and (4) certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).3

Substantively, the Request seeks to add 

Priority Mail Contract Group to the 

Competitive Product List. Id. at 1–2. 

In the Statement of Supporting 

Justification, Mary Prince Anderson, 

Manager, Sales and Communications, 

Expedited Shipping, asserts that the 

services to be provided will cover their 

attributable costs, make a positive 

contribution to institutional costs, and 

increase contribution toward the 

requisite 5.5 percent of the Postal 

Service’s total institutional costs. Id., 

Attachment 2. Thus, Ms. Anderson 

contends there will be no issue of 

subsidization of competitive products 

by market dominant products as a result 

of this product. Id. 

Related contracts. Redacted versions 

of five specific Priority Mail contracts 

are included with the Request. Three of 

the contracts are for 3 years, one of the 

contracts is for 1 year, and the final 

contract is for 3 months. Depending on 

the contract, the effective dates are 

proposed to be either the day on which 

the Commission provides all necessary 

regulatory approvals or the following 

day.4 The Postal Service represents that 

all these contracts are consistent with 39 

U.S.C. 3633(a). See Notices, Attachment 

B. 

The Postal Service filed much of the 

supporting materials, including the 

Governors’ Decision and the specific 

Priority Mail contracts, under seal. In its 

Request, the Postal Service maintains 

that the contracts and related financial 

information, including the customer’s 

name and the accompanying analyses 

that provide prices, terms, conditions, 

and financial projections should remain 

under seal. Request at 2; Notices at 2. 

II. Preliminary Observations 

The Postal Service’s filings in these 

cases differ from previous NSA cases in 

several ways. In the typical negotiated 

service agreement approval scenario, the 

Postal Service requests that the 

Commission list a new competitive 

negotiated service agreement-type 

product on the Competitive Product 

List. Contemporaneously, it typically 

requests approval of a particular 

contract or group of contracts under 39 

U.S.C. 3633 that relate to the new 

negotiated service agreement 

competitive product. See Docket No. 

MC2009–9, Order Concerning Global 

Direct Contracts Negotiated Service 

Agreements, December 19, 2008; see 

generally Docket No. MC2009–9. If 

future or concurrent agreements are 

‘‘functionally equivalent’’ to the initial 

proposed agreement, those contracts are 

typically listed as part of the prior 

negotiated service agreement product. 

See e.g., Docket No. CP2009–19, Order 

Concerning Additional Global 

Expedited Package Services 1 

Negotiated Service Agreement, January 

9, 2009, at 4–6. 

Here, the Postal Service is seeking to 

place a broadly defined negotiated 

service agreement-type product on the 

Competitive Product List which has 

very few requirements or limitations. 

The proposed requirements for that 

negotiated service agreement product 

are as follows: (1) The agreement must 

be for Priority Mail service, and (2) the 

cost coverage for the particular contract 

must fall within a specified range. 

Request, Attachment 1 and Attachment 

A. 

The Postal Service provides no 

arguments or evidence attempting to 

show that the five contracts at issue in 

the above captioned ‘‘CP’’ cases are 

functionally equivalent. Additionally, 

the Commission is concerned that if 

functionally equivalent is intended to 

apply broadly, it may be problematic in 

many respects. See generally Docket No. 

C2008–3. In lieu of initiating separate 

‘‘MC’’ dockets for each of the proposed 

contracts, the Commission will, for 

purposes of this notice, treat the filing 

on a consolidated basis and provide 

interested persons (including the Postal 

Service) an opportunity to address the 

proper classification of these contracts, 

i.e., as separate products or functionally 

equivalent (in whole or in part).5 Those 

commenting should provide the support 

for their position. 

The broad parameters in the 

Governors’ Decision appear designed to 

accommodate a variety of Priority Mail 

contracts. The Commission appreciates 

the underlying intent. Regardless of the 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 26745 

outcome of this proceeding, it is the 

Commission’s view that Governors’ 

Decision 09–6 may be used to authorize 

future Priority Mail agreements that 

satisfy the broad parameters set out in 

Governors’ Decision 09–6. Thus, for 

example, if, based on the parameters of 

Governors’ Decision 09–6, the Postal 

Service seeks to add a future nonfunctionally equivalent Priority Mail 

contract to the Competitive Product List, 

it may file a new joint ‘‘MC’’ and ‘‘CP’’ 

docket that relies on Governors’ 

Decision 09–6 to satisfy the 

requirements of 39 CFR 3020.31(b) and 

39 U.S.C. 3642. 

III. Supplemental Information 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.6, the 

Commission requests the Postal Service 

to provide the following supplemental 

information by June 1, 2009: 

1. Please explain the cost adjustments 

present within each contract. Explain 

what mailer activities or characteristics 

result in the cost savings, or result in 

any additional costs for the Postal 

Service. Please address every instance 

where an NSA partner’s cost differs 

from the average cost. 

2. Please provide a timeframe of when 

NSA partner volumes and cubic feet 

measurements were collected for each 

contract. Also provide a unit of analysis 

for volumes in each contract, e.g., whole 

numbers, thousands, etc. 

3. In the Excel files accompanying all 

five contracts, unit transportation costs 

are hard coded (See tab: ‘‘Partner Unit 

Cost’’ rows 21 and 22). Please provide 

up-to-date sources and show all 

calculations. 

IV. Notice of Filings 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MC2009–25 for consideration of the 

Postal Service’s classification request 

and Docket Nos. CP2009–30 through 

CP2009–34 for consideration of the five 

proposed contracts. In keeping with 

practice, these dockets are addressed on 

a consolidated basis for purposes of this 

order. 

Filing instructions. For administrative 

convenience, future filings addressing 

the issues raised in this notice and order 

should be filed in Docket No. MC2009– 

25. However, if interested parties 

identify issues relating only to one of 

the contracts at issue in Docket No. 

CP2009–30 through CP2009–34, such 

filings should be made in the specific 

docket in which those issues pertain. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s filings in the captioned 

dockets are consistent with the policies 

of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642 and 39 

CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR part 3020, 

subpart B. Additionally, the 

Commission welcomes comments on 

the issues discussed above. Comments 

are due no later than June 8, 2009. The 

public portions of these filings can be 

accessed via the Commission’s Web site 

(http://www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Michael J. 

Ravnitzky to serve as Public 

Representative in these dockets. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MC2009–25 for consideration of the 

issues raised in this order. The 

Commission establishes Docket Nos. 

CP2009–30, CP2009–31, CP2009–32, 

CP2009–33 and CP2009–34 to address 

specific issues raised by those 

individual contracts. 

2. Future filings addressing the issues 

raised in this notice and order should be 

filed in Docket No. MC2009–25. 

However, if interested parties identify 

issues relating only to one of the 

contracts at issue in Docket Nos. 

CP2009–30 through CP2009–34, such 

filings should be made in the specific 

docket in which those issues pertain. 

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

J. Ravnitzky is appointed to serve as 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in these 

proceedings. 

4. The Postal Service is to provide the 

information requested in section III of 

this order no later than June 1, 2009. 

5. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

June 8, 2009. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12839 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Board of Governors; Sunshine Act 

Meeting 

Board Votes To Close June 2, 2009, 

Meeting 

At its closed session meeting on May 

5, 2009, the Board of Governors of the 

United States Postal Service voted 

unanimously to close to public 

observation its meeting to be held on 

June 2, 2009, in Washington, DC via 

teleconference. The Board determined 

that no earlier public notice was 

possible. 

Items Considered 

1. Strategic Issues. 

2. Financial Matters. 

3. Pricing. 

4. Personnel Matters and 

Compensation Issues. 

5. Governors’ Executive Session— 

discussion of prior agenda items and 

Board Governance. 

General Counsel Certification 

The General Counsel of the United 

States Postal Service has certified that 

the meeting is properly closed under the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. 

Contact Person for More Information 

Requests for information about the 

meeting should be addressed to the 

Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, 

at (202) 268–4800. 

Julie S. Moore, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–13065 Filed 6–1–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Board of Governors; Sunshine Act 

Meeting 

Board Votes to Close May 22, 2009, 

Meeting 

In person and by telephone vote on 

May 22, 2009, a majority of the members 

contacted and voting, the Board of 

Governors of the United States Postal 

Service voted unanimously to close to 

public observation its meeting held in 

Washington, DC, via teleconference. The 

Board determined that no earlier public 

notice was possible. 

Items Considered 

1. Strategic Issues. 

2. Financial Matters. 

3. Pricing. 

4. Personnel Matters and 

Compensation Issues. 

5. Governors’ Executive Session— 

discussion of prior agenda items and 

Board Governance. 

General Counsel Certification 

The General Counsel of the United 

States Postal Service has certified that 

the meeting was properly closed under 

the Government in the Sunshine Act. 

Contact Person for More Information 

Requests for information about the 

meeting should be addressed to the 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES