Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 30179 

1Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not 

of General Applicability (Priority Mail Contract 11), 

June 11, 2009 (Notice). 

geochemical parameters in a sitespecific analysis for disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? 

Issue III–6. Modeling of Radon in the 

Environment in a Site-Specific Analysis 

Over time, the uranium isotopes 

comprising depleted uranium decay to 

multiple progeny radionuclides. Many 

of these progeny radionuclides are 

different elements, and differ from 

depleted uranium in their radiotoxicity 

and mobility in the environment. 

Among the progeny radionuclides 

exhibiting these differing 

characteristics, radon-222 is of 

particular interest because it exists as a 

gas under typical environmental 

conditions and presents a unique 

challenge to evaluate in a site-specific 

analysis of the performance of a nearsurface, low-level radioactive waste 

disposal facility. Analyzing the mobility 

of radon-222 in the environment 

involves demonstrating a reasonable 

understanding of the emanation of the 

radon gas from the depleted uranium 

solids, and migration to the surface of 

the disposal facility. Additionally, NRC 

anticipates that radon migration may 

require policy considerations of societal 

uncertainties in developing appropriate 

exposure scenarios. 

Question III–6.1—What new 

approaches for modeling radon 

emanation, migration, and exposure 

pathways, including the effects of 

differences in the physical and chemical 

properties between radon and its 

progeny, should NRC consider? 

Question III–6.2—Should NRC require 

licensees to evaluate the effects of radon 

in a site-specific analysis for disposal of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium in near-surface facilities? 

Question III–6.3—Should NRC specify 

by regulation, or develop guidance on, 

the technical parameters for evaluating 

radon emanation, migration, and 

exposure in a site-specific analysis of 

significant quantities of depleted 

uranium? 

Question III–6.4—If NRC should 

specify by regulation the technical 

parameters for evaluating radon 

emanation, migration, and exposure, 

what factors should NRC consider in 

specifying technical parameters for a 

site-specific analysis for significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.5—If NRC should 

develop guidance on the technical 

parameters for evaluating radon 

emanation, migration, and exposures to 

accompany regulatory criteria, then 

what factors should NRC consider in the 

development of guidance for evaluating 

technical parameters for a site-specific 

analysis for disposal of significant 

quantities of depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.6—What societal 

uncertainties should NRC consider 

when developing guidance for scenarios 

of exposure to radon gas released from 

the disposal of significant quantities of 

depleted uranium? 

Question III–6.7—What alternative 

methods should NRC consider when 

developing guidance on evaluating the 

impacts of radon gas exposures? For 

instance, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency standards at 40 CFR Part 192 for 

the control of residual radioactive 

materials from inactive uranium mill 

tailings sites specify that releases of 

radon-222 to the atmosphere will not 

exceed an average release rate of 20 

picoCuries per square meter per second 

or increase the annual average 

concentration of radon–222 in air at or 

above any location outside the disposal 

site by more than 0.5 picoCuries per 

liter. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day 

of June, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Patrice M. Bubar, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management, and 

Environmental Protection Office of Federal 

and State Materials, and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–14820 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2009–37; Order No. 222] 

Priority Mail Contract 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add an additional Priority Mail contract 

to the Competitive Product List. This 

notice addresses procedural steps 

associated with this filing. 

DATES: Comments are due June 26, 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. Background 

On June 11, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

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

announcing that it has entered into an 

additional contract (Priority Mail 

Contract 11), which it contends fits 

within the previously proposed Priority 

Mail Contract Group product.1 In 

support, the Postal Service filed the 

proposed contract and referenced 

Governors’ Decision 09–6 filed in 

Docket No. MC2009–25. Id. at 1. 

The Notice states that the ‘‘contract 

differs from the contract filed as Priority 

Mail Contract 6 only in regards to 

negotiated prices and a difference in 

termination provisions.’’ Id. at 2. In 

addition, it states that the contract is 

scheduled to become effective the day 

that the Commission issues all 

necessary regulatory approval. Id. at 1. 

The instant contract. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contract 

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

CFR 3015.5. It submitted the contract 

and supporting material under seal and 

attached a redacted copy of the contract 

and certified statement required by 39 

CFR 3015.5(c)(2) to the Notice. Id., 

Attachments A and B respectively. 

The Postal Service maintains that the 

contract 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. Id. at 2. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–37 for consideration of the 

matters related to the contract identified 

in the Postal Service’s Notice. 

The Notice does not expressly use the 

term functionally equivalent to describe 

proposed Priority Mail Contract 11. 

Instead, it appears to implicitly make 

that claim by distinguishing the instant 

contract from Priority Mail Contract 6, 

filed in Docket No. CP2009–30 as part 

of the proposed Priority Mail Contract 

Group. Id. at 2. As the Postal Service 

recognizes, the scope of the Priority 

Mail Contract Group product is 

currently pending before the 

Commission. To that end, it 

acknowledges that the Commission’s 

decision in Docket No. MC2009–25 may 

have an impact on the sufficiency of the 

Postal Service’s filings in this case. Id. 

at 1, n.1. Depending on the outcome of 

Docket No. MC2009–25, the Postal 

Service may need to file additional 

support as required in 39 CFR 3020 

subpart B. Such filings, if any, shall be 

due within three days of the 

Commission’s order in Docket No. 

30180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 

MC2009–25 addressing the scope of the 

proposed Priority Mail Contract Group 

product. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the instant 

contract is 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, and whether it should be 

classified within the Priority Mail 

Contract Group or as a separate product. 

Comments in this case are due no later 

than June 26, 2009. 

The public portions of these filings 

can be accessed via the Commission’s 

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

The Commission appoints Paul L. 

Harrington to serve as Public 

Representative in this docket. 

III. Supplemental Information 

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.6, the 

Commission requests the Postal Service 

to provide the following supplemental 

information by June 23, 2009: 

1. (a) Please explain the cost 

adjustments made to each contract; 

(b) Explain the mailer activities or 

characteristics that: 

(i) yield cost savings to the Postal 

Service, 

(ii) impose additional costs on the 

Postal Service; 

(c) Please address every instance 

where an NSA partner’s cost differs 

from the average cost. 

2. (a) Please provide a timeframe of 

when NSA partner volumes and cubic 

feet measurements were collected for 

each contract. 

(b) Please provide a unit of analysis 

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

numbers, thousands, etc. 

3. In the Excel files accompanying the 

instant contract, unit transportation 

costs are hard coded (See tab: ‘‘Partner 

Unit Cost’’ rows 18 and 19). Please 

provide up-to-date sources and show all 

calculations. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–37 for consideration of the 

issues raised in this docket. 

2. As discussed in this Order, the 

Postal Service shall file supplemental 

information, if necessary, within three 

days of the Commission’s order in 

Docket No. MC2009–25 addressing the 

scope of the proposed Priority Mail 

Contract Group product. 

3. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

June 26, 2009. 

4. The Postal Service is to provide the 

information requested in section III of 

this Order no later than June 23, 2009. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L. 

Harrington is appointed to serve as 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in these 

proceedings. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this Order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–14777 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[License No. 02/72–0625] 

Founders Equity SBIC I, L.P.; Notice 

Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 

of the Small Business Investment Act, 

Conflicts of Interest 

Notice is hereby given that Founders 

Equity SBIC I, L.P., 711 Fifth Avenue, 

5th Floor, New York, NY 10022, a 

Federal Licensee under the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), in connection 

with the financing of a small concern, 

has sought an exemption under Section 

312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 

Financings which Constitute Conflicts 

of Interest of the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) Rules and 

Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Founders 

Equity SBIC I, L.P. proposes to provide 

equity security financing to Richardson 

Foods, Inc., 101 Erie Blvd., Canajoharie, 

NY 13317. The financing will provide 

the company with additional capital to 

fund an acquisition and to meet working 

capital requirements, and for debt 

repayment. 

The financing is brought within the 

purview of § 107.730(a) of the 

Regulations because Founders Equity 

NY, L.P., an Associate of Founders 

Equity SBIC I, L.P., owns more than ten 

percent of Richardson Foods, Inc. and 

therefore Richardson Foods, Inc. is 

considered an Associate of Founders 

Equity SBIC I, L.P. as defined in 

§ 107.50 of the Regulations. 

Notice is hereby given that any 

interested person may submit written 

comments on the transaction to the 

Associate Administrator for Investment, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20416. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Harry Haskins, 

Acting Associate Administrator for 

Investment. 

[FR Doc. E9–14813 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Delegation of Authority 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of delegation of 

authority. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

public notice of the delegation of 

authority for certain investment 

activities by the Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) to 

the Chief of Staff and the Agency 

Licensing Committee. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry Haskins, Acting Associate 

Administrator for Investment, U.S. 

Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416; 

(202) 205–6694 or sbic@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides the public notice of 

the Administrator’s delegation of 

authority to the Agency Licensing 

Committee to review and recommend to 

the Administrator for approval 

applications for licenses to operate as a 

small business investment company 

under the Small Business Investment 

Act of 1958, as amended. 

This delegation of authority reads as 

follows: 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

pursuant to section 301 of the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, as 

amended, the authority to take any and 

all actions necessary to review 

applications for licensing under section 

301 of the Small Business Investment 

Act of 1958, as amended, and to 

recommend to the Administrator which 

such applications should be approved is 

delegated to the Agency Licensing 

Committee. 

The Agency Licensing Committee 

shall be composed of the following 

members: 

Associate Administrator for Capital 

Access, Chair, Associate Administrator 

for Investment, General Counsel, Deputy 

General Counsel, Chief Financial 

Officer. 

This authority revokes all other 

authorities granted by the Administrator 

to recommend and approve applications 

for a license to operate as a small 

business investment company under the 

Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 

as amended. This authority may not be 

re-delegated; however, in the event that 

the person serving in one of the 

positions listed as a member of the 

Agency Licensing Committee is absent 

from the office, as defined in SBA 

Standard Operating Procedure 00 01 2, 

Chapter 3, paragraph 2, or is unable to 

perform the functions and duties of his