57304 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Notices 

2 Docket No. CP2009–50, Order Granting 

Clarification and Adding Global Expedited Package 

Services 2 to the Competitive Product List, August 

28, 2009 (Order No. 290). 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service 

Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytic Principles (Proposals 

Three—Eight), September 8, 2010 (Petition). 

2The extra services include Certified, Insured, 

Return Receipt, Delivery Confirmation, and COD. 

the instant contracts are functionally 

equivalent to previously submitted 

GEPS contracts, and are supported by 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–7, attached 

to the Notice and originally filed in 

Docket No. CP2008–4. Id. at 1, 

Attachment 3. The Notice explains that 

Order No. 86, which established GEPS 

1 as a product, also authorized 

functionally equivalent agreements to be 

included within the product, provided 

that they meet the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3633. Id. at 2. In Order No. 290, 

the Commission approved the GEPS 2 

product.2 In Order No. 503, the 

Commission approved the GEPS 3 

product. Additionally, the Postal 

Service requested to have the contract in 

Docket No. CP2010–71 serve as the 

baseline contract for future functional 

equivalence analyses of the GEPS 3 

product. 

The instant contracts. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contracts 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. In addition, 

the Postal Service contends that each 

contract is in accordance with Order No. 

86. The Postal Service that relates that 

two of the instant contracts, which 

expire September 30, 2010, are 

successor contracts for the same 

customers as in Docket Nos. CP2009–64 

and CP2009–65, respectively. The term 

of each contract is 1 year from the date 

the Postal Service notifies the customer 

that all necessary regulatory approvals 

have been received. Notice at 3–4. 

In support of its Notice, the Postal 

Service filed four attachments as 

follows: 

• Attachments 1A through 1K— 

redacted copies of the 11 contracts and 

applicable annexes; 

• Attachments 2A through 2K— 

certified statements required by 39 CFR 

3015.5(c)(2) for each contract; 

• Attachment 3—a redacted copy of 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–7 which 

establishes prices and classifications for 

GEPS contracts, a description of 

applicable GEPS contracts, formulas for 

prices, an analysis of the formulas, and 

certification of the Governors’ vote; and 

• Attachment 4—an application for 

non–public treatment of materials to 

maintain redacted portions of the 

contracts and supporting documents 

under seal. 

The Notice advances reasons why the 

instant GEPS 3 contracts fit within the 

Mail Classification Schedule language 

for GEPS. The Postal Service identifies 

customer–specific information and 

general contract terms that distinguish 

the instant contracts from the baseline 

GEPS 3 agreement. Id. at 5. It states that 

the differences, which include price 

variations based on updated costing 

information and volume commitments, 

do not alter the contracts’ functional 

equivalency. Id. at 4–5. The Postal 

Service asserts that ‘‘[b]ecause the 

agreements incorporate the same cost 

attributes and methodology, the relevant 

characteristics of these 11 GEPS 

contracts are similar, if not the same, as 

the relevant characteristics of previously 

filed contracts.’’ Id. at 5. 

The Postal Service concludes that its 

filings demonstrate that each of the new 

GEPS 3 contracts complies with the 

requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633 and is 

functionally equivalent to the baseline 

GEPS 3 contract. Therefore, it requests 

that the instant contracts be included 

within the GEPS 3 product. Id. at 6. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. CP2010–105 through CP2010–115 

for consideration of matters related to 

the contracts identified in the Postal 

Service’s Notice. 

These dockets are addressed on a 

consolidated basis for purposes of this 

order. Filings with respect to a 

particular contract should be filed in 

that docket. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s contracts are consistent with 

the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 

3642. Comments are due no later than 

September 20, 2010. 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 

proceedings. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

Nos. CP2010–105 through CP2010–115 

for consideration of matters raised by 

the Postal Service’s Notice. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

September 20, 2010. 

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

Harrington is appointed to serve as the 

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. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23404 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. RM2010–12; Order No. 534] 

Periodic Reporting Proposals 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service has 

requested changes in six analytical 

methods approved for use in periodic 

reporting. This document summarizes 

the proposals and invites public 

comment. 

DATES: Comments are due October 8, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202–789– 

6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 8, 2010, the Postal Service 

filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 

3050.11 to initiate an informal 

rulemaking proceeding to consider 

changes in the analytical methods 

approved for use in periodic reporting.1

Six separate proposals are included in 

the Petition labeled as Proposals Three 

through Eight. 

Proposal Three involves City Carrier 

costs. The Postal Service asserts that the 

City Carrier Cost System is capturing 

more detailed information regarding 

direct bundles. The proposal would 

incorporate this new information by 

assigning relevant costs for direct 

bundles to the products that utilize 

them. 

Proposal Four would change the way 

certain In–Office Cost System (IOCS) 

acceptance costs are allocated. The 

change would apply to mailpieces 

accepted at a window, which bear non– 

retail indicia, and host an extra service 

other than Registered Mail.2 Currently, 

acceptance costs are assigned to the 

extra service. The Postal Service 

proposes to modify this methodology by 

assigning acceptance costs to the host 

mailpiece. 

Proposal Five involves utilizing the 

more detailed information now being 

captured by the Rural Carrier Cost 

System regarding collected prepaid 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Notices 57305 

parcels. The new information allows the 

recognition of a distinction between 

collected prepaid parcels weighing less 

than or equal to 2 pounds, and those 

greater than 2 pounds. 

Proposal Six involves the 

International Cost and Revenue 

Analysis (ICRA). The Postal Service 

considers this proposal a change in 

calculation procedure, not an analytical 

methodology change. The change would 

separately incorporate the Inbound 

Processing and Carrier In–Office costs 

for Canada, Developing Countries and 

Industrialized Countries into the ICRA 

model using IOCS. The Postal Service 

asserts that this incorporates the 

Commission’s methodology for using 

IOCS tally analysis into the ICRA 

model. 

Proposal Seven would introduce a 

mailflow–based model of mail 

processing costs for Standard Mail 

Parcels and NFMs (Not–Flat 

Machinables). The Postal Service 

previously did not have a cost model for 

mail processing for this product. 

Proposal Eight involves the 

distribution key for distributing empty 

equipment transportation costs to 

products. These costs are included in 

cost segment 14 (purchased 

transportation). The proposal is to 

attribute the empty equipment costs to 

products using a distribution factor that 

is based on the aggregate pound miles 

traveled on modes of transportation 

sampled by the Transportation Cost 

System (TRACS). 

The attachments to the Postal 

Service’s Petition explain each proposal 

in more detail, including its objective, 

background, impact, and an empirical 

example (comparing the changes in data 

reporting to the status quo). The 

Petition, including the attachments, is 

available for review on the 

Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.prc.gov. 

Comments on Proposals Three 

through Eight are due no later than 

October 8, 2010. 

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Cassie 

D’Souza is appointed as Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public concerning 

Proposals Three through Six and Eight; 

and John P. Klingenberg is appointed as 

Public Representative to represent the 

interests of the general public 

concerning Proposal Seven. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Petition of the United States 

Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a 

Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytic Principles 

(Proposals Three—Eight), filed 

September 8, 2010, is granted. 

2. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2010–12 to consider the matters 

raised by the Postal Service’s Petition. 

3. Interested persons may submit 

comments on Proposals Three through 

Eight no later than October 8, 2010. 

4. The Commission will determine the 

need for reply comments after review of 

the initial comments. 

5. As noted in the body of this order, 

Cassie D’Souza and John P. Klingenberg 

are appointed to serve as the Public 

Representative to represent the interests 

of the general public in this proceeding. 

6. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23371 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Form N–SAR, SEC File No. 270–292, OMB 

Control No. 3235–0330. 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the collection of information 

summarized below. The Commission 

plans to submit this existing collection 

of information to the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for 

extension and approval. 

Form N–SAR (OMB Control No. 

3235–0330, 17 CFR 249.330) is the form 

used by all registered investment 

companies with the exception of face 

amount certificate companies, to 

comply with the periodic filing and 

disclosure requirements imposed by 

Section 30 of the Investment Company 

Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.) 

(‘‘Investment Company Act’’), and of 

rules 30a–1 and 30b1–1 thereunder (17 

CFR 270.30a–1 and 17 CFR 270.30b1–1). 

The information required to be filed 

with the Commission assures the public 

availability of the information and 

permits verification of compliance with 

Investment Company Act requirements. 

Registered unit investment trusts are 

required to provide this information on 

an annual report filed with the 

Commission on Form N–SAR pursuant 

to rule 30a–1 under the Investment 

Company Act, and registered 

management investment companies 

must submit the required information 

on a semi-annual report on Form N– 

SAR pursuant to rule 30b1–1 under the 

Investment Company Act. 

The Commission estimates that the 

total number of respondents is 3,480 

and the total annual number of 

responses is 6,180 ((2,700 management 

investment company respondents × 2 

responses per year) + (780 unit 

investment trust respondents × 1 

response per year)). The Commission 

estimates that each registrant filing a 

report on Form N–SAR would spend, on 

average, approximately 14.31 hours in 

preparing and filing reports on Form N– 

SAR and that the total hour burden for 

all filings on Form N–SAR would be 

88,436 hours. 

The collection of information under 

Form N–SAR is mandatory. Responses 

to the collection of information will not 

be kept confidential. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number. 

Please direct general comments 

regarding the above information to the 

following persons: (i) Desk Officer for 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 

or send an e-mail to Shagufta Ahmed at 

Shagufta_Ahmed@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) 

Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General 

Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 

send an e-mail to: 

PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must 

be submitted to OMB within 30 days of 

this notice. 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23409 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES