35898 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Filing Two Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 2 

Negotiated Service Agreements, July 13, 2009 

(Notice). 

2See Docket Nos. MC2008–7, CP2008–16 and 

CP2008–17, Order Concerning Global Plus 2 

Negotiated Service Agreements, October 3, 2008 

(Order No. 112). 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and closed. 

Week of July 20, 2009 

Thursday, July 23, 2009 

1:25 p.m. 

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 

(Tentative) 

a. Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4), LBP–09–3 (Ruling 

on Standing and Contention 

Admissibility); Virginia Electric and 

Power Co. (North Anna Unit 3), 

LBP–08–15 (Ruling on Standing 

and Contention Admissibility) 

(Tentative). 

b. Draft Notice and Order for Areva 

Enrichment Services, LLC 

(Tentative). 

Week of July 27, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of July 27, 2009. 

Week of August 3, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 3, 2009. 

Week of August 10, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 10, 2009. 

Week of August 17, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 17, 2009. 

Week of August 24, 2009—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 24, 2009. 

* * * * * 

* The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify the 

NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, 

Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 

301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 

rohn.brown@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an email to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: July 16, 2009. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–17378 Filed 7–17–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2009–48 and CP2009–49; 

Order No. 250] 

New Competitive Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add two additional Global Plus 2 

contracts to the Competitive Product 

List. This notice addresses procedural 

steps associated with these filings. 

DATES: Comments are due July 23, 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 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Background 

On July 13, 2009, the Postal Service 

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

3633 and 39 CFR 3015.5, announcing 

that it has entered into two additional 

Global Plus 2 contracts, which it states 

fit within the previously established 

Global Plus 2 Contracts product.1 The 

Postal Service states that the instant 

contracts are functionally equivalent to 

previously submitted Global Plus 2 

contracts, are filed in accordance with 

Order No. 112 and are supported by 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–10 filed in 

Docket No. MC2008–7.2 Notice at 1. 

The Notice also states that in Docket 

No. MC2008–7, the Governors 

established prices and classifications for 

competitive products not of general 

applicability for Global Plus 2 contracts. 

The Postal Service relates that the 

instant contracts are the immediate 

successor contracts to those in Docket 

Nos. CP2008–16 and CP2008–17, which 

will expire soon, and which the 

Commission found to be functionally 

equivalent in Order No. 112. The Postal 

Service contends that the instant 

contracts should be included within the 

Global Plus 2 product on the 

Competitive Product List. Id. In support, 

the Postal Service has filed redacted 

versions of each contract and related 

materials as Attachments 1–A and 1–B. 

Redacted versions of the certified 

statements required by 39 CFR 3015.5 

are included as Attachments 2–A and 2– 

B, respectively. The Postal Service states 

that the contracts should be included 

within the Global Plus 2 product and 

requests that the instant contracts be 

considered the ‘‘baseline contracts for 

future functional equivalency analyses 

concerning this product.’’ Id. at 2. 

The instant contracts. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contracts 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. The 

contracts become effective August 1, 

2009, unless regulatory reviews affect 

that date, and have a one-year term. 

The Postal Service maintains that 

certain portions of each contract and 

certified statements required by 39 CFR 

3015.5(c)(2), names and identifying 

information of the Global Plus 2 

customers, related financial 

information, portions of the certified 

statements which contain costs and 

pricing as well as the accompanying 

analyses that provide prices, terms, 

conditions, and financial projections 

should remain under seal. Id. at 3. 

The Postal Service asserts the 

contracts are functionally equivalent 

because they share similar cost and 

market characteristics and should be 

classified as a single product. Id. at 3. 

It states that while the precursor 

contracts filed in Docket Nos. CP2008– 

16 and CP2008–17 exhibited minor 

distinctions based on differences in 

customers’ negotiations, business needs 

or relationship with the Postal Service, 

the new versions of the agreements are 

identical to one another. Id. at 4. 

The Postal Service also states that the 

instant contracts’ customers are the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 35899 

3The Postal Service states the commitments also 

account for International Priority Airmail (IPA), 

International Surface Air Lift (ISAL), Express Mail 

International (EMI), and Priority Mail International 

(PMI) items mailed under a separate but related 

Global Plus 1 contract with each customer. The 

Global Plus 1 contracts are the subject of a separate 

competitive products proceeding. 

1See Order No. 192, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Application of Workshare Discount 

Rate Design Principles, March 16, 2009, at 3 (Order 

No. 192). 

2There were 13 commenters in response to Order 

No. 192. For convenience, participant comments are 

identified in Appendix A to this order. 

same Postal Qualified Wholesalers 

(PQWs) as the parties to the contracts in 

Docket Nos. CP2008–16 and CP2008–17. 

Even though some terms and conditions 

of the contracts have changed, it states 

the essence of the service to the PQW 

customers is offering price-based 

incentives to commit large amounts of 

mail volume or postage revenue for 

Global Bulk Economy (GBE) and Global 

Direct (GD).3

The Postal Service indicates that the 

instant contracts have material 

differences which include removal of 

retroactivity provisions, explanations of 

price modification as a result of 

currency rate fluctuations or postal 

administration fees; removal of language 

on enforcement of mailing 

requirements; and restructuring of price 

incentives, commitments, penalties and 

clarification of continuing contractual 

obligations in the event of termination. 

The Postal Service maintains these 

differences only add detail or amplify 

processes included in prior Global Plus 

2 contracts. It contends because the 

contracts have the same cost attributes 

and methodology as well as similar cost 

and market characteristics, the 

differences do not affect the 

fundamental service being offered or the 

essential structure of the contracts. Id. at 

8. It states the contracts are substantially 

similar both to one another and to the 

precursor Global Plus 2 contracts. 

Therefore, it asserts these contracts are 

‘‘functionally equivalent in all pertinent 

respects.’’ Id. at 8. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. CP2009–48 and CP2009–49 for 

consideration of the matters related to 

the contracts identified in the Postal 

Service’s Notice. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the instant 

contracts are consistent with the 

policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3622, or 

3642. Comments are due no later than 

July 23, 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. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. CP2009–48 and CP2009–49 for 

consideration of the issues raised in 

these dockets. 

2. Comments by interested persons on 

issues in these proceedings are due no 

later than July 23, 2009. 

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 Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

Issued: July 16, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–17420 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. RM2009–3; Order No. 243] 

Postal Rates 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public forum. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

public forum to address workshare 

discount methodologies in First-Class 

Mail and Standard Mail. It invites 

public participation in the forum, 

responses to views expressed at the 

forum, and replies to comments filed in 

response to Order No. 192. This 

document also incorporates revisions 

identified in a July 10, 2009 errata 

notice. The revisions affected only the 

list of commenters presented in Order 

No. 243. 

DATES: Public forum: August 11, 2009 at 

1 p.m.; responses and reply comments 

due: August 31, 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, 

at 202–789–6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 50744 (March 24, 2009). 

I. Introduction 

II. Public Forum Issues 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On March 16, 2009, the Commission 

issued Order No. 191 in Docket No. 

R2009–2 approving a set of market 

dominant rate changes proposed by the 

Postal Service. It did so with the 

awareness that a number of complex 

issues relating to the proper application 

of the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006), to those 

rates could best be resolved in a followon docket in which sufficient time and 

sufficiently flexible procedures would 

be available to ensure that these issues 

could be thoroughly examined. To that 

end, the Commission issued Order No. 

192, also on March 16, 2009, soliciting 

public comment on the ‘‘legal, factual, 

and economic bases’’ underlying the 

discounts for First-Class and Standard 

Mail approved in Docket No. R2009–2, 

and any alternative workshare discount 

rate design and cost avoidance 

methodologies that participants wished 

to propose.1

The comments received on May 26 

and 27, 2009 were numerous and wideranging.2 Those comments include legal 

interpretations of the relevant portions 

of the PAEA, offered arguments (largely 

qualitative) concerning the market 

position of various categories of FirstClass and Standard Mail, and advocate 

both the use or abandonment of certain 

traditional benchmarks used to quantify 

the costs avoided by various mail 

characteristics associated with 

workshare discounts. Several 

participants offered classification 

proposals designed to recognize the 

unique cost characteristics of various 

subsets of First-Class Mail. Specifically, 

Stamps.com proposed that a ‘‘Qualified 

PC Postage’’ mail category be 

established to reflect the reduced costs 

that would accompany single-piece 

First-Class Mail to which the mailer has 

applied CASS certified software and a 

full-service Intelligent Mail Barcode. 

Stamps.com Comments at 1. In 

addition, the officer of the Commission 

appointed to represent the interests of 

the general public (Public 

Representative) proposed that if the link 

between single-piece First-Class Mail 

costs and presorted First-Class Mail 

rates is to be abandoned, that singlepiece First-Class Mail be established as 

a separate class of mail for rate setting 

purposes. Public Representative’s 

Comments at 23–27. 

It is clear from the comments that 

resolving some of these issues will be 

contingent on how others are resolved. 

For example, if the Commission were to 

agree with the Postal Service’s view 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES