Global Expedited Package Services Contract, 36538-36539 [E9-17605]

Download as PDF 36538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices Day Event 20 ......................................... NRC staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information. If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI or likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. 25 ......................................... 30 ......................................... 40 ......................................... A ........................................... A+3 ....................................... A+28 ..................................... A+53 (Contention receipt +25). A+60 (Answer receipt +7) .... B ........................................... Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. Decision on contention admission. [FR Doc. E9–17568 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2009–50; Order No. 251] Global Expedited Package Services Contract Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service request to include an additional Priority Mail Contract 1 on the Competitive Product List. This notice addresses procedural steps associated with this filing. DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit comments 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: I. Introduction II. Notice of Filing III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction On July 16, 2009, the Postal Service filed a notice announcing that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 1 (GEPS 1) VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 217001 contract.1 GEPS 1 provides volumebased incentives for mailers that send large volumes of Express Mail International (EMI) and/or Priority Mail International (PMI). The Postal Service believes the instant contract is functionally equivalent to previously submitted GEPS 1 contracts, and is supported by the Governors’ Decision filed in Docket No. CP2008–4.2 Notice at 1. It further notes that in Order No. 86, which established GEPS 1 as a product, the Commission held that additional contracts may be included as part of the GEPS 1 product if they meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633, and if they are functionally equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed in Docket No. CP2008–5.3 Notice at 1. The instant contract. The Postal Service filed the instant contract pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. In addition, the Postal Service contends that the contract is in accordance with Order No. 86. The Postal Service states that the 1 Notice of United States Postal Service Filing of Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, July 16, 2009 (Notice). 2 See Docket No. CP2008–4, Notice of United States Postal Service of Governors’ Decision Establishing Prices and Classifications for Global Expedited Package Services Contents, May 20, 2008. The docket referenced in the caption should be the docket in which the Governors’ Decision is filed. In this instance, that was Docket No. CP2008– 4. The contract being suspended was filed in Docket No. CP2008–5. 3 See Docket No. CP2008–5, Order Concerning Global Expedited Package Services Contracts, June 27, 2008, at 7 (Order No. 86). PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 instant contract replaces the contract for the customer in Docket No. CP2008–5 which will end on August 1, 2009. Id. at 2. 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 as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Id. at 1–2. The term of the instant contract is 1 year from the date the Postal Service notifies the customer that all necessary regulatory approvals have been received. The Notice advances reasons why the instant GEPS 1 contract fits within the Mail Classification Schedule language for GEPS 1. The Postal Service contends that the instant contract is functionally equivalent to the GEPS 1 contracts filed previously. It states that in Governors’ Decision No. 08–7, a pricing formula and classification system were established to ensure that each contract meets the statutory and regulatory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Postal Service contends that the instant contract demonstrates its functional equivalence with the previous GEPS 1 contracts because of several factors: The customers are small or medium-sized businesses that mail directly to foreign destinations using EMI and/or PMI, the contract term of one year applies to all GEPS 1 contracts, the contracts have similar cost and market characteristics, and each requires payment through permit imprint. Id. at 4. It asserts that even though prices may be different E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM 23JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices based on volume or postage commitments made by the customers, or updated costing information, these differences do not affect the contracts’ functional equivalency because the GEPS 1 contracts share similar cost attributes and methodology. Id. at 4–5. The Postal Service also states the instant contract has minor differences in terms compared to other GEPS 1 contracts based on the individual mailers. These distinctions include provisions clarifying the correlation between regulatory oversight and contract expiration 4 and the availability of other Postal Service products and services; exclusion of certain flat rate products from the mail qualifying for discounts; a simpler mailing notice requirement along with provisions to meet scheduling needs; mail tender location changes; specific liquidated damages terms; provisions clarifying the mailer’s volume and revenue commitment calculation in the event of early termination; and provisions clarifying aspects subject to regulatory oversight or revisions to update terms or references from a prior contract. Id. at 5–6. The Postal Service states that these differences related to a particular mailer are ‘‘incidental differences’’ and do not change the conclusion that these agreements are functionally equivalent in all substantive aspects. Id. at 7. The Postal Service requests that this contract be included within the GEPS 1 product and be considered the baseline contract for determining functional equivalence for additional GEPS 1 contracts. Id. II. Notice of Filing erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2009–50 for consideration of matters related to the contract identified in the Postal Service’s Notice. Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service’s contract is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3622 or 3642. Comments are due no later than July 27, 2009. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site (https:// www.prc.gov). The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public Representative in the captioned filings. 4 The Postal Service states that some of the contracts generally provide that if all applicable reviews have not been completed at the time an older contract expires, the mailer must pay published prices until some alternative becomes available. It seeks approval for the instant agreement prior to expiration of the current agreement. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Jul 22, 2009 Jkt 217001 III. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2009–50 for consideration of the issues raised in this docket. 2. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than July 27, 2009. 3. 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. 4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Judith M. Grady, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–17605 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request Summary: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of information collection: Request for Medicare Payment; OMB 3220–0131. Under Section 7(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the RRB administers the Medicare program for persons covered by the railroad retirement system. The collection obtains the information needed by Palmetto GBA, the Medicare carrier for railroad retirement beneficiaries, to pay claims for payments under Part B of the Medicare program. Authority for collecting the information is prescribed in 42 CFR 424.32. The RRB currently utilizes Forms G– 740S, Patient’s Request for Medicare PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 36539 Payment, (along with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Form CMS–1500) to secure the information necessary to pay Part B Medicare Claims. One response is completed for each claim. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. The RRB proposes minor, non-burden impacting editorial changes to RRB Form G–740S. The RRB estimates annual respondent burden associated with RRB Form G–740s as follows: Estimated number of responses: 100. Estimated completion time per response: 15 minutes. Estimated annual burden hours: 25. Additional Information or Comments: To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Officer at (312) 751–3363 or send an e-mail request to Charles.Mierzwa@RRB.GOV. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 or send an e-mail to Ronald.Hodapp@RRB.GOV. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E9–17509 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905–01–P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding two (2) Information Collection Requests (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM 23JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36538-36539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17605]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. CP2009-50; Order No. 251]


Global Expedited Package Services Contract

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a recently-filed Postal Service 
request to include an additional Priority Mail Contract 1 on the 
Competitive Product List. This notice addresses procedural steps 
associated with this filing.

DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 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: 

I. Introduction
II. Notice of Filing
III. Ordering Paragraphs

I. Introduction

    On July 16, 2009, the Postal Service filed a notice announcing that 
it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 1 
(GEPS 1) contract.\1\ GEPS 1 provides volume-based incentives for 
mailers that send large volumes of Express Mail International (EMI) 
and/or Priority Mail International (PMI). The Postal Service believes 
the instant contract is functionally equivalent to previously submitted 
GEPS 1 contracts, and is supported by the Governors' Decision filed in 
Docket No. CP2008-4.\2\ Notice at 1. It further notes that in Order No. 
86, which established GEPS 1 as a product, the Commission held that 
additional contracts may be included as part of the GEPS 1 product if 
they meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633, and if they are 
functionally equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed in Docket 
No. CP2008-5.\3\ Notice at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of United States Postal Service Filing of 
Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 1 
Negotiated Service Agreement, July 16, 2009 (Notice).
    \2\ See Docket No. CP2008-4, Notice of United States Postal 
Service of Governors' Decision Establishing Prices and 
Classifications for Global Expedited Package Services Contents, May 
20, 2008. The docket referenced in the caption should be the docket 
in which the Governors' Decision is filed. In this instance, that 
was Docket No. CP2008-4. The contract being suspended was filed in 
Docket No. CP2008-5.
    \3\ See Docket No. CP2008-5, Order Concerning Global Expedited 
Package Services Contracts, June 27, 2008, at 7 (Order No. 86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The instant contract. The Postal Service filed the instant contract 
pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. In addition, the Postal Service contends 
that the contract is in accordance with Order No. 86. The Postal 
Service states that the instant contract replaces the contract for the 
customer in Docket No. CP2008-5 which will end on August 1, 2009. Id. 
at 2. 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 as Attachments 1 and 2, 
respectively. Id. at 1-2. The term of the instant contract is 1 year 
from the date the Postal Service notifies the customer that all 
necessary regulatory approvals have been received.
    The Notice advances reasons why the instant GEPS 1 contract fits 
within the Mail Classification Schedule language for GEPS 1. The Postal 
Service contends that the instant contract is functionally equivalent 
to the GEPS 1 contracts filed previously. It states that in Governors' 
Decision No. 08-7, a pricing formula and classification system were 
established to ensure that each contract meets the statutory and 
regulatory requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633. The Postal Service contends 
that the instant contract demonstrates its functional equivalence with 
the previous GEPS 1 contracts because of several factors: The customers 
are small or medium-sized businesses that mail directly to foreign 
destinations using EMI and/or PMI, the contract term of one year 
applies to all GEPS 1 contracts, the contracts have similar cost and 
market characteristics, and each requires payment through permit 
imprint. Id. at 4. It asserts that even though prices may be different

[[Page 36539]]

based on volume or postage commitments made by the customers, or 
updated costing information, these differences do not affect the 
contracts' functional equivalency because the GEPS 1 contracts share 
similar cost attributes and methodology. Id. at 4-5.
    The Postal Service also states the instant contract has minor 
differences in terms compared to other GEPS 1 contracts based on the 
individual mailers. These distinctions include provisions clarifying 
the correlation between regulatory oversight and contract expiration 
\4\ and the availability of other Postal Service products and services; 
exclusion of certain flat rate products from the mail qualifying for 
discounts; a simpler mailing notice requirement along with provisions 
to meet scheduling needs; mail tender location changes; specific 
liquidated damages terms; provisions clarifying the mailer's volume and 
revenue commitment calculation in the event of early termination; and 
provisions clarifying aspects subject to regulatory oversight or 
revisions to update terms or references from a prior contract. Id. at 
5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Postal Service states that some of the contracts 
generally provide that if all applicable reviews have not been 
completed at the time an older contract expires, the mailer must pay 
published prices until some alternative becomes available. It seeks 
approval for the instant agreement prior to expiration of the 
current agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Postal Service states that these differences related to a 
particular mailer are ``incidental differences'' and do not change the 
conclusion that these agreements are functionally equivalent in all 
substantive aspects. Id. at 7.
    The Postal Service requests that this contract be included within 
the GEPS 1 product and be considered the baseline contract for 
determining functional equivalence for additional GEPS 1 contracts. Id.

II. Notice of Filing

    The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2009-50 for consideration 
of matters related to the contract identified in the Postal Service's 
Notice.
    Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal 
Service's contract is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 
3622 or 3642. Comments are due no later than July 27, 2009. The public 
portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site 
(https://www.prc.gov).
    The Commission appoints Paul L. Harrington to serve as Public 
Representative in the captioned filings.

III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:
    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2009-50 for 
consideration of the issues raised in this docket.
    2. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no 
later than July 27, 2009.
    3. 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.
    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the 
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Judith M. Grady,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17605 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.