Express Mail International Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements, 32364-32365 [E8-12764]
Download as PDF
32364
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
and committed to maintain them
permanently defueled. The NRC
acknowledged the certification of
permanent cessation of power operation
and permanent removal of fuel from the
reactor vessels in a letter dated May 4,
1998. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the 10 CFR 50 facility operating licenses
for Zion no longer authorize operation
of the reactors or emplacement or
retention of fuel in the reactor vessels.
Also, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(b),
‘‘Continuation of license,’’ the facility
licenses remain in effect until the NRC
notifies the licensee that the licenses
have been terminated.
On January 25, 2008, Exelon, the Zion
licensee, submitted a request for a
license transfer. The proposal is to
transfer the licensed ownership,
management authorities, and
decommissioning trust fund of the
facility to ZS a subsidiary of Energy
Solutions. ZS was formed for the
purpose of decommissioning the Zion
site. The title to the site real estate and
the spent nuclear fuel will remain with
Exelon. ZS will construct and transfer
the spent fuel to an ISFSI as part of the
decommissioning. Following the
decommissioning, currently scheduled
for 10 years, the license for the spent
fuel will be transferred back to Exelon.
On March 18, 2008, ZS submitted an
amended PSDAR for Zion. The PSDAR
represents the ZS plan of activities to
become effective if the application for
license transfer is approved. The PSDAR
describes the planned decommissioning
activities, provides a schedule for the
planned decommissioning activities,
includes a cost estimate for the
decommissioning, and assesses the
environmental impacts.
Further Information
The application for license transfer
and the draft PSDAR are available for
public viewing at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) or electronically
through the NRC Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) at accession numbers
ML080310521 for the transfer request
and ML080840398 for the PSDAR.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the PDR, located at
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Library component on
the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
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 by telephone at 1–(800)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
397–4209, or (301) 415–4737, or by
e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of June 2008.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
Branch Chief, Reactor Decommissioning
Branch, Decommissioning and Uranium
Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of
Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. E8–12696 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CP2008–7; Order No. 79]
Express Mail International Bilateral/
Multilateral Agreements
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: A new law gives the Postal
Service considerable pricing flexibility
for competitive products. Pursuant to
this authority, the Postal Service has
filed two notices with the Commission
concerning prices for inbound
international Express Mail, which is in
the competitive category. The
Commission has established a
consolidated docket for consideration of
these pricing decisions. This will allow
interested persons an opportunity to
comment.
DATES: Comments due June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit documents
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 and
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
On May
20, 2008, the Postal Service filed notice,
pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39
CFR 3015.5, of the Governors’ decision
establishing prices for competitive
products not of general applicability for
Inbound Express Mail International
(EMS).1 The Postal Service’s filing,
docketed as Docket No. CP2008–6,
includes supporting material, including
the Governors’ Decision, filed under
seal. In support of this treatment, the
Postal Service asserts that prices
negotiated under bilateral/multilateral
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 Notice of United States Postal Service of
Governors’ Decision on Inbound Prices Under
Express Mail International (EMS) Bilateral/
Multilateral Agreements, May 20, 2008 (Notice).
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
agreements are highly confidential
among postal administrations and that
their public disclosure would
compromise the Postal Service’s ability
to negotiate agreements with other
posts. Id. at 1.
Concurrently, the Postal Service filed
notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5, of a
specific negotiated service agreement
covering Inbound EMS prices.2 This
filing, docketed as Docket No. CP2008–
7, includes the contract and supporting
materials filed under seal. In support,
the Postal Service asserts that its ability
to negotiate bilateral or multilateral
EMS agreements would be
compromised if the underlying prices
are publicly disclosed. It also states that
public disclosure would compromise
foreign posts’ ability to negotiate with
other posts. Id.
The Postal Service filings in these
dockets are related. Docket No. CP2008–
6 establishes, in essence, a shell
classification, while Docket No.
CP2008–7 is a specific agreement
negotiated pursuant to the conditions of
the shell classification.3 Given this
interrelationship, the Commission will
consolidate these proceedings for
purposes of review.4
In Order No. 43, the Commission
issued regulations establishing a
modern system of rate regulation,
including identifying a list of
competitive products. PRC Order No.
43, October 29, 2007, paras. 3061, 4013.
Among other things, the Commission
determined that each negotiated service
agreement would initially be classified
as a separate product. The Commission
also acknowledged, however, the
possibility of grouping functionally
equivalent agreements as a single
product if they exhibit similar cost and
market characteristics. Id. paras. 2177
and 3001. Thus, the EMS agreement
filed in Docket No. CP2008–7,
representing the first bilateral/
multilateral agreement presented to the
Commission, will be classified as a new
product.
2 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing
an Agreement for Inbound Express Mail
International (EMS) Prices, May 20, 2008 (Pricing
Notice).
3 The Postal Service notes that it previously
suggested proposed language for inclusion in the
draft Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) applicable
to Inbound EMS. United States Postal Service
Submission of Additional Mail Classification
Schedule Information in Response to Order No. 43,
November 20, 2007 (November 20 Filing). Its filings
entail no changes to the previously proposed
language. The draft MCS remains under review. The
Commission anticipates providing interested
persons an opportunity to comment on the draft
MCS in the near future.
4 All future filings in the consolidated docket
shall be made under Docket No. CP2008–7.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
As noted above, the Postal Service
filed both dockets pursuant to rule
3015.5. Recognizing that the Postal
Service’s filings in this consolidated
proceeding (along with the
concomitantly filed notices in Docket
Nos. CP2008–4 and CP2008–5)
represent the Postal Service’s first
filings involving competitive rates not of
general applicability under section
3632(b)(3) of title 39, the Commission
will proceed as if the Inbound EMS
agreement also had been filed pursuant
to 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B and will
review the consolidated dockets
pursuant to rule 3020.34.5
The Postal Service’s filing in Docket
No. CP2008–6 is styled as applicable to
Inbound EMS. So, too, is the negotiated
agreement filed in Docket No. CP2008–
7. To that extent, both are consistent
with language it proposed for inclusion
in the draft MCS in its November 20
Filing. In Order No. 43, the Commission
listed inbound and outbound
international expedited services as
separate products. The Commission has
made no determination, however,
whether the outbound portion of the
agreement in Docket No. CP2008–7 is
subject to its review.
Agreements with foreign posts present
unique issues that have not yet been
fully briefed. In its November 20 Filing,
the Postal Service contended that the
outbound portion of agreements with
foreign posts ‘‘does not properly belong
in the MCS’’ because the outbound
portion reflects a payment by the Postal
Service for processing and delivery by
foreign posts and not what the Postal
Service charges for its services.
November 20 Filing at 10.
The Postal Service’s filings also raise
issues concerning the treatment of
confidential information, a broad topic
that may require different solutions
tailored to the specifics of each case. For
instance, agreements with foreign posts
may require different treatment than
agreements with private entities
(corporations, businesses, etc.).
Agreements concerning competitive
products may require different
treatment than agreements concerning
market dominant products. A common
issue, however, is how individual
agreements (contracts) are to be
identified in the Mail Classification
5 Filings to change or add rates not of general
applicability are properly made under rule 3015.5.
Postal Service filings to modify the product lists are
properly made under part 3020, subpart B. Filings
involving negotiated service agreements implicate
both sets of rules until such time that a group of
negotiated service agreements are shown to be
classified properly as one product. The Commission
anticipates that with experience and the adoption
of the MCS the review process will proceed
relatively quickly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Schedule. For agreements with foreign
posts involving competitive products,
the Commission proposes, at a
minimum, identifying each
international mail agreement by the
name(s) of the foreign post(s), the mail
product(s) involved, and the
agreement’s expiration date.
The Commission assumes that the
Postal Service has or will have
agreements with many if not most
foreign posts. Thus, with the potential
for many agreements, some compelling
justification for keeping the identity of
the foreign posts confidential is
warranted. To elaborate briefly in this
proceeding, the Postal Service contends
that the identities of the foreign posts
with which it executes bilateral/
multilateral agreements should not be
disclosed, arguing generally that foreign
posts’ ability to negotiate with other
posts could be compromised by public
disclosure. Pricing Notice at 1. Absent
more, this rationale would not appear to
justify concealing the identity of foreign
posts in proceedings before the
Commission. The Postal Service should
amplify on the rationale for its position,
including addressing the putative harm
associated with public disclosure.
The Commission has observed that
typical international mail agreements
are of approximately one year duration
(with possible provisions for renewal).
Absent justification, there would appear
to be no compelling need to keep
expiration dates confidential. Thus, in
its comments, the Postal Service should
also address the issue of including the
expiration date of each agreement in the
MCS, as well as identifying the product.
Comments addressing these points are
due no later than June 10, 2008.
Interested persons may comment on
issues in this consolidated proceeding,
including whether the Postal Service
filings are consistent with the policies of
sections 3632, 3633, or 3642. Comments
are due no later than June 16, 2008.
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 the
above-captioned docket.
It is ordered:
1. The proceedings in Docket Nos.
CP2008–6 and CP2008–7 are
consolidated. All future filings in the
consolidated docket are to be made
under Docket No. CP2008–7.
2. As set forth in the body of this
order, the Postal Service comments on
confidentiality are due no latter than
June 10, 2008.
3. Comments on issues in this
consolidated proceeding from interested
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32365
persons are due no later than June 16,
2008.
4. The Commission appoints Paul L.
Harrington as Public Representative to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this notice and order in
the Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–12764 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CP2008–5; Order No. 78]
Global Expedited Package Services
Negotiated Service Agreements
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: A new law gives the Postal
Service considerable pricing flexibility
for competitive products. Pursuant to
this authority, the Postal Service has
filed two notices with the Commission
concerning prices for Global Expedited
Package Services (GEPS) contracts,
which is in the competitive category.
The Commission has established a
consolidated docket for consideration of
these pricing decisions. This will allow
interested persons an opportunity to
comment.
DATES: Comments due June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit documents
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 and
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
20, 2008, the Postal Service filed two
notices, which have been assigned to
Docket Nos. CP2008–4 and CP2008–5,
announcing prices and classification
changes for competitive products not of
general applicability. The notice in
Docket No. CP2008–4 informs the
Commission that ‘‘the Governors have
established prices and classifications for
competitive products not of general
applicability for Global Expedited
Package Services (GEPS) contracts.’’ 1
The Postal Service attached a revision of
the draft Mail Classification Schedule
(MCS) (section 2610.2) concerning GEPS
1 Notice of United States Postal Service of
Governors’ Decision Establishing Prices and
Classifications for Global Expedited Package
Services Contracts, May 20, 2008 (Notice).
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 110 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32364-32365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12764]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CP2008-7; Order No. 79]
Express Mail International Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements
AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A new law gives the Postal Service considerable pricing
flexibility for competitive products. Pursuant to this authority, the
Postal Service has filed two notices with the Commission concerning
prices for inbound international Express Mail, which is in the
competitive category. The Commission has established a consolidated
docket for consideration of these pricing decisions. This will allow
interested persons an opportunity to comment.
DATES: Comments due June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit documents electronically via the Commission's Filing
Online system at https://www.prc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202-789-6820 and stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 20, 2008, the Postal Service filed
notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, of the
Governors' decision establishing prices for competitive products not of
general applicability for Inbound Express Mail International (EMS).\1\
The Postal Service's filing, docketed as Docket No. CP2008-6, includes
supporting material, including the Governors' Decision, filed under
seal. In support of this treatment, the Postal Service asserts that
prices negotiated under bilateral/multilateral agreements are highly
confidential among postal administrations and that their public
disclosure would compromise the Postal Service's ability to negotiate
agreements with other posts. Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notice of United States Postal Service of Governors'
Decision on Inbound Prices Under Express Mail International (EMS)
Bilateral/Multilateral Agreements, May 20, 2008 (Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrently, the Postal Service filed notice, pursuant to 39 CFR
3015.5, of a specific negotiated service agreement covering Inbound EMS
prices.\2\ This filing, docketed as Docket No. CP2008-7, includes the
contract and supporting materials filed under seal. In support, the
Postal Service asserts that its ability to negotiate bilateral or
multilateral EMS agreements would be compromised if the underlying
prices are publicly disclosed. It also states that public disclosure
would compromise foreign posts' ability to negotiate with other posts.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing an
Agreement for Inbound Express Mail International (EMS) Prices, May
20, 2008 (Pricing Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Postal Service filings in these dockets are related. Docket No.
CP2008-6 establishes, in essence, a shell classification, while Docket
No. CP2008-7 is a specific agreement negotiated pursuant to the
conditions of the shell classification.\3\ Given this
interrelationship, the Commission will consolidate these proceedings
for purposes of review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Postal Service notes that it previously suggested
proposed language for inclusion in the draft Mail Classification
Schedule (MCS) applicable to Inbound EMS. United States Postal
Service Submission of Additional Mail Classification Schedule
Information in Response to Order No. 43, November 20, 2007 (November
20 Filing). Its filings entail no changes to the previously proposed
language. The draft MCS remains under review. The Commission
anticipates providing interested persons an opportunity to comment
on the draft MCS in the near future.
\4\ All future filings in the consolidated docket shall be made
under Docket No. CP2008-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Order No. 43, the Commission issued regulations establishing a
modern system of rate regulation, including identifying a list of
competitive products. PRC Order No. 43, October 29, 2007, paras. 3061,
4013. Among other things, the Commission determined that each
negotiated service agreement would initially be classified as a
separate product. The Commission also acknowledged, however, the
possibility of grouping functionally equivalent agreements as a single
product if they exhibit similar cost and market characteristics. Id.
paras. 2177 and 3001. Thus, the EMS agreement filed in Docket No.
CP2008-7, representing the first bilateral/multilateral agreement
presented to the Commission, will be classified as a new product.
[[Page 32365]]
As noted above, the Postal Service filed both dockets pursuant to
rule 3015.5. Recognizing that the Postal Service's filings in this
consolidated proceeding (along with the concomitantly filed notices in
Docket Nos. CP2008-4 and CP2008-5) represent the Postal Service's first
filings involving competitive rates not of general applicability under
section 3632(b)(3) of title 39, the Commission will proceed as if the
Inbound EMS agreement also had been filed pursuant to 39 CFR part 3020,
subpart B and will review the consolidated dockets pursuant to rule
3020.34.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Filings to change or add rates not of general applicability
are properly made under rule 3015.5. Postal Service filings to
modify the product lists are properly made under part 3020, subpart
B. Filings involving negotiated service agreements implicate both
sets of rules until such time that a group of negotiated service
agreements are shown to be classified properly as one product. The
Commission anticipates that with experience and the adoption of the
MCS the review process will proceed relatively quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Postal Service's filing in Docket No. CP2008-6 is styled as
applicable to Inbound EMS. So, too, is the negotiated agreement filed
in Docket No. CP2008-7. To that extent, both are consistent with
language it proposed for inclusion in the draft MCS in its November 20
Filing. In Order No. 43, the Commission listed inbound and outbound
international expedited services as separate products. The Commission
has made no determination, however, whether the outbound portion of the
agreement in Docket No. CP2008-7 is subject to its review.
Agreements with foreign posts present unique issues that have not
yet been fully briefed. In its November 20 Filing, the Postal Service
contended that the outbound portion of agreements with foreign posts
``does not properly belong in the MCS'' because the outbound portion
reflects a payment by the Postal Service for processing and delivery by
foreign posts and not what the Postal Service charges for its services.
November 20 Filing at 10.
The Postal Service's filings also raise issues concerning the
treatment of confidential information, a broad topic that may require
different solutions tailored to the specifics of each case. For
instance, agreements with foreign posts may require different treatment
than agreements with private entities (corporations, businesses, etc.).
Agreements concerning competitive products may require different
treatment than agreements concerning market dominant products. A common
issue, however, is how individual agreements (contracts) are to be
identified in the Mail Classification Schedule. For agreements with
foreign posts involving competitive products, the Commission proposes,
at a minimum, identifying each international mail agreement by the
name(s) of the foreign post(s), the mail product(s) involved, and the
agreement's expiration date.
The Commission assumes that the Postal Service has or will have
agreements with many if not most foreign posts. Thus, with the
potential for many agreements, some compelling justification for
keeping the identity of the foreign posts confidential is warranted. To
elaborate briefly in this proceeding, the Postal Service contends that
the identities of the foreign posts with which it executes bilateral/
multilateral agreements should not be disclosed, arguing generally that
foreign posts' ability to negotiate with other posts could be
compromised by public disclosure. Pricing Notice at 1. Absent more,
this rationale would not appear to justify concealing the identity of
foreign posts in proceedings before the Commission. The Postal Service
should amplify on the rationale for its position, including addressing
the putative harm associated with public disclosure.
The Commission has observed that typical international mail
agreements are of approximately one year duration (with possible
provisions for renewal). Absent justification, there would appear to be
no compelling need to keep expiration dates confidential. Thus, in its
comments, the Postal Service should also address the issue of including
the expiration date of each agreement in the MCS, as well as
identifying the product. Comments addressing these points are due no
later than June 10, 2008.
Interested persons may comment on issues in this consolidated
proceeding, including whether the Postal Service filings are consistent
with the policies of sections 3632, 3633, or 3642. Comments are due no
later than June 16, 2008.
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 the above-captioned docket.
It is ordered:
1. The proceedings in Docket Nos. CP2008-6 and CP2008-7 are
consolidated. All future filings in the consolidated docket are to be
made under Docket No. CP2008-7.
2. As set forth in the body of this order, the Postal Service
comments on confidentiality are due no latter than June 10, 2008.
3. Comments on issues in this consolidated proceeding from
interested persons are due no later than June 16, 2008.
4. The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington as Public
Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this
proceeding.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and
order in the Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12764 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P