Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Notices 41759 

4The Postal Service states that the instant 

contract is the same as the contract approved by the 

Commission in Docket No. CP2009–50, Order 

Concerning Filing of Additional Global Expedited 

Package Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, 

July 29, 2009. It asserts the only differences are the 

liquidated damages provisions and tender 

provisions. Id. at 2, n.4. 

5The 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. In the instant case, the Postal Service 

seeks approval of a new GEPS 1 contract with a new 

customer. 

1Notice of United States Postal Service Filing of 

Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package 

Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement and 

Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials 

Filed Under Seal, August 7, 2009 (Notice). 

2See Docket No. CP2008–4, Notice of United 

States Postal Service of Governors’ Decision 

Establishing Prices and Classifications for Global 

Expedited Package Services Contracts, May 20, 

2008. 

3See Docket No. CP2008–5, Order Concerning 

Global Expedited Package Services Contracts, June 

27, 2008, at 7 (Order No. 86). 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–7 which 

establishes prices and classifications for 

GEPS contracts. The Postal Service 

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 3 and 4, respectively. Id. at 

2. The term of the instant contract is one 

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 satisfies the 

pricing formula and classification 

system established in Governors’ 

Decision No. 08–7. In addition, it states 

that several factors demonstrate the 

contract’s functional equivalence with 

the previous GEPS 1 contracts, 

including the following: 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 based on 

volume or postage commitments made 

by the customers, or updated costing 

information, these differences do not 

affect the contract’s functional 

equivalency because the GEPS 1 

contracts share similar cost attributes 

and methodology. Id. at 4–5. 

The Postal Service identifies other 

provisions which it states reflect minor 

differences between mailers.4 These 

distinctions include provisions 

clarifying the correlation between 

regulatory oversight and contract 

expiration 5 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 6. 

The Postal Service concludes that this 

contract is functionally equivalent to 

previous GEPS 1 contracts and requests 

that this contract be included within the 

GEPS 1 product. Id. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–59 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 August 

19, 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 the captioned filing. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–59 for consideration of the 

issues raised in this docket. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

August 19, 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. 

Ann C. Fisher, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19808 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2009–58; Order No. 274] 

New Competitive Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add a Global Expedited Package 

Services 1 (GEPS 1) contract to the 

Competitive Product List. This notice 

addresses procedural steps associated 

with this filing. 

DATES: Comments are due August 19, 

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 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On August 7, 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 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 

previously submitted GEPS 1 contracts.3

Notice at 1–2. 

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. It filed an application for non-public 

treatment of materials to maintain the 

contract and supporting documents 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
41760 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Notices 

4The Postal Service states that the instant 

contract is the same as the contract approved by the 

Commission in Docket No. CP2009–50, Order 

Concerning Filing of Additional Global Expedited 

Package Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, 

July 29, 2009. It asserts the only differences are the 

liquidated damages provisions and tender 

provisions. Id. at 2, n.4. 

5The 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. In the instant case, the Postal Service 

seeks approval of a new GEPS 1 contract with a new 

customer. 

under seal as Attachment 1 to the 

Notice. Id., Attachment 1. 

The Notice also includes, as 

Attachment 2, a redacted copy of 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–7 which 

establishes prices and classifications for 

GEPS contracts. The Postal Service 

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 3 and 4, respectively. Id. at 

2. The term of the instant contract is one 

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 satisfies the 

pricing formula and classification 

system established in Governors’ 

Decision No. 08–7. In addition, it states 

that several factors demonstrate the 

contract’s functional equivalence with 

the previous GEPS 1 contracts, 

including the following: 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 3–4. It asserts that even 

though prices may be different based on 

volume or postage commitments made 

by the customers, or updated costing 

information, these differences do not 

affect the contract’s functional 

equivalency because the GEPS 1 

contracts share similar cost attributes 

and methodology. Id. at 4–5. 

The Postal Service identifies other 

provisions which it states reflect minor 

differences between mailers.4 These 

distinctions include provisions 

clarifying the correlation between 

regulatory oversight and contract 

expiration5 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 6. 

The Postal Service concludes that this 

contract is functionally equivalent to 

previous GEPS 1 contracts and requests 

that this contract be included within the 

GEPS 1 product. Id. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–58 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 August 

19, 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 the captioned filing. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–58 for consideration of the 

issues raised in this docket. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

August 19, 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. 

Ann C. Fisher, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19809 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Data Collection Available for Public 

Comments and Recommendations 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Small Business 

Administration’s intentions to request 

approval on a new and/or currently 

approved information collection. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send all comments 

regarding whether this information 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the function of the 

agency, whether the burden estimates 

are accurate, and if there are ways to 

minimize the estimated burden and 

enhance the quality of the collection, to 

Gail Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy 

Branch, Office of Financial Assistance, 

Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 

Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 

20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy Branch, 

Office of Financial Assistance 202–205– 

7530 gail.hepler@sba.gov Curtis B. Rich, 

Management Analyst, 202–205–7030 

curtis.rich@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) is 

authorize to guaranty loans in the SBA 

Express and Pilot Loan Programs. The 

regulations covering these and other 

loan programs at 13 CFR part 120 

requires certain information from loan 

applicants and lenders. 

Title: ‘‘SBA Express and Pilot Loan 

Programs (Export Express, Community 

Express and Patriot Express.’’ 

Description of Respondents: Small 

Business Clients. 

Form Number’s: 1919, 1920SX, A, B, 

C, 2237, 2239. 

Annual Responses: 98,200. 

Annual Burden: 52,474. 

Curtis B. Rich, 

Acting Chief, Administrative Information 

Branch. 

[FR Doc. E9–19797 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES