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
35900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

3For example, several commenters have 

indicated an interest in proposing modifications to 

established methods for modeling costs avoided by 

worksharing, depending on how logically prior 

issues have been resolved. See Postal Service 

Comments at 46–47; MMA Comments at 12; and 

APWU Comments at 7. Consideration of such 

proposals will take place at a later, appropriate 

time. 

that, as a legal matter, the worksharing 

discount standards of 39 U.S.C. 3622(e) 

apply only to components of individual 

‘‘products’’ as defined in the Mail 

Classification Schedule, it would render 

moot any consideration of the market 

positions of the various First-Class and 

Standard Mail categories issued in 

Docket No. R2009–2. Similarly, if the 

Commission were to conclude that 

section 3622(e) may be applied across 

products, but each product at issue 

serves a separate and distinct market, 

that conclusion would dispense with 

the need to consider the issue of what 

benchmark would be most appropriate 

for measuring the cost avoided by the 

worksharing characteristics of those 

products. Likewise, if the Commission 

were to conclude that First-Class Mail 

may not be further subdivided for 

purposes of applying caps to rates, it 

would nullify the Public 

Representative’s rationale for proposing 

to establish single-piece First-Class Mail 

as a separate class of mail. Because 

these issues are mutually dependent, 

they will be considered together in the 

current phase of this proceeding. 

Technical issues of how avoided costs 

should be calculated will be considered 

after the need for benchmarks has been 

confirmed and appropriate benchmarks 

have been identified. 

Some of the key issues to be 

addressed in this docket have basic 

public policy dimensions. The 

Commission has determined that those 

issues might benefit from being aired in 

the context of a public forum. A public 

forum will have the advantage of 

allowing representatives of various 

interests to have a dialogue, and 

exchange views in a non-adversarial 

discussion that allows others to respond 

with their own supporting or 

contrasting views or with clarifying 

questions. The Commission hopes that 

such a forum will significantly 

strengthen the record on which these 

policy-laden decisions will be based. It 

envisions convening such a forum 

August 11, 2009, at 1 p.m. in the 

Commission’s hearing room. 

Participants will have an opportunity 

to file written responses both to the 

exchange of views at the forum and to 

the comments filed in response to Order 

No. 192 (the notice of proposed 

rulemaking in this docket). Those 

responses will be due on or before 

August 31, 2009. The Commission also 

will provide interested parties with an 

opportunity to address technical issues 

concerning how avoided costs should be 

modeled at a later date, when the legal, 

policy, and economic issues described 

below have been resolved.3

II. Public Forum Issues 

There are two issues that the 

Commission would like to explore 

further in the context of a public forum. 

The first is the issue of whether the 

users of single-piece First-Class Mail are 

entitled to special protection under the 

PAEA, and, if so, whether protection 

should take the form of: 

1. Maintaining the traditional linkage 

of single-piece rates to the rates charged 

for Presorted First-Class Mail through a 

suitable benchmark; 

2. Establishing a separate class of 

single-piece First-Class Mail subject to 

its own rate cap; 

3. Adopting a regulation that would 

limit the difference allowed between 

single-piece and presorted First-Class 

Mail in terms of either average revenue 

per piece or percent contribution to 

institutional costs; 

4. Relying on a qualitative or 

subjective standard of protection, such 

as the ‘‘just and reasonable’’ standard of 

section 3622(b)(8); or 

5. Other suggested forms of 

protection. 

The second policy issue that the 

Commission would like the public 

forum to address is whether a 

worksharing discount should be defined 

as: 

1. A ‘‘pure’’ presorting, prebarcoding, 

handling, or transportation activity that 

is a direct substitute for an equivalent 

Postal Service activity; or 

2. A ‘‘pure’’ worksharing activity as 

described above, plus other costreducing mail characteristics that are 

facilitated by or naturally support the 

‘‘pure’’ worksharing activity, e.g., walk 

sequencing and density. 

A related aspect of the second policy 

issue is whether a discount that reflects 

both cost-reducing characteristics that 

are directly related to a worksharing 

activity, and others that are indirectly 

related to, or unrelated to the 

worksharing activity: 

1. Should be defined as 

‘‘worksharing’’ or ‘‘non-worksharing’’ 

according to some rule, such as which 

cost-reducing effect is thought to 

predominate; 

2. Should be unbundled so that 

separate discounts are developed for the 

worksharing and non-worksharing 

components; or 

3. Should remain bundled, but be 

analytically decomposed into its 

worksharing and other components so 

that section 3622(e) standards may be 

applied to the worksharing component. 

In addition to the broad issues 

described above that the Commission 

considers appropriate for discussion in 

the August 11, 2009 forum, there are 

several technical aspects of those issues 

that participants should ponder and 

comment upon, either in the forum 

itself or in the written comments that 

are due on August 31, 2009. 

Issues specific to First-Class Mail. The 

assertions in the comments about the 

nature of markets for First-Class letters 

are, for the most part, qualitative. What 

little supporting data are offered are 

subject to more than one interpretation. 

In the next round of written comments, 

the Commission encourages parties to 

provide empirical support for their 

understanding of the state of the 

markets for single-piece and presort 

First-Class Mail letters. Information 

about attributes of smaller business 

mailers who can be converted (or 

already have been converted) by presort 

firms from users of single-piece into 

users of presorted First-Class would be 

especially useful. Similarly, information 

about how price signals influence 

mailers’ decisions to invest in hardware, 

software or quality control processes to 

avoid postage penalties that could result 

from failing Postal Service acceptance 

tests would be particularly helpful. 

Issues specific to Standard Mail. 

Several commenters make assertions 

about the market differences between 

Carrier Route, High Density, and 

Saturation mail that are largely 

qualitative. They assert, for example, 

that Saturation mailers appear to have 

more delivery alternatives than Carrier 

Route or High Density mailers. Valassis/ 

SMC argues that private delivery is a 

less viable option for High Density 

mailers because such mailings are 

demographically, rather than 

geographically targeted. See Valassis/ 

SMC Comments at 12, n.7. This would 

seem to indicate that the market for 

High Density mail is more closely 

related to the market for Carrier Route 

mail because both target specific 

addresses. In the next round of 

comments, the Commission encourages 

parties to provide empirical support for 

their understanding of the state of the 

markets for the former components of 

Enhanced Carrier Route mail. 

The Commission also welcomes 

additional comment on how 

worksharing cost avoidance should be 

defined and measured in the context of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 35901 

4As noted, in the past, the Commission 

determined that Carrier Route, High Density, and 

Saturation mail, as a group, share an own-price 

demand elasticity that is distinct from Non-carrier 

Route mail. For this reason, it de-linked 5-digit mail 

and Carrier Route mail in Docket No. MC95–1 when 

the former Enhanced Carrier Route (ECR) subclass 

was established. 

5Using Carrier Route mail as a benchmark for 

letter-shaped Standard Mail is also problematic 

because the minimum number of pieces required 

for the 5-digit letter rate is 150, while the Carrier 

Route letter rate requires only 10 pieces. 

6This is confirmed by Witness Shipe’s testimony 

in Docket No. R90–1. It shows that carriers case 

mail at a rate of 20.6 pieces per minute for nonsequenced Carrier Route letters, 29.0 pieces for 

walk-sequenced High Density letters, and 41.2 

pieces for Saturation letters. The corresponding 

numbers for flats are 10.7, 13.6 and 27.4 pieces per 

minute. See Docket No. R90–1, Direct Testimony of 

Thomas Shipe, USPS–T–10, Exhibit USPS–10B, at 

3 and 6. This constitutes declining marginal cost. 

Standard Mail. The Commission has 

long concluded that to promote 

productive efficiency, discounts for 

related categories of mail with the same 

own-price demand elasticity should not 

exceed the costs that the Postal Service 

avoids when mailers perform 

worksharing. This principle is known as 

efficient component pricing (ECP). The 

Postal Service has taken the former 

components of the Enhanced Carrier 

Route subclass—Carrier Route, High 

Density, and Saturation mail—and 

redefined them as separate products. 

The Postal Service, however, continues 

to estimate an own-price elasticity for 

these categories as a group, and the 

Commission has continued to apply 

ECP to worksharing cost differences 

among these rate categories on the 

premise that they serve the same market 

and have essentially the same elasticity 

of demand. The Postal Service and some 

other commenters now contend that the 

High Density and Saturation categories 

each serve distinct markets. See Valpak 

Comments at 17–18; Valassis/SMC 

Comments at 10–14; and Haldi 

Comments at 15–16. If true, economic 

theory suggests that cost coverages for 

each of these products should reflect 

distinct market conditions. 

If there is not sufficient empirical 

evidence to conclude that these 

categories serve separate markets, and 

ECP remains relevant, applying it under 

the current classification structure with 

its attendant eligibility requirements is 

problematic. For example, several 

commenters contend that the difference 

in cost between High Density mail and 

Saturation mail reflects only the effect 

of the density eligibility requirement, 

not the effect of worksharing. See Postal 

Service Comments at 29; Haldi 

Comments at 11; and Valassis/SMC 

Comments at 2. 

Sequencing mail, however, appears to 

fit the definition of worksharing activity 

in section 3622(e). If the mailer does not 

sequence the mail, then the Postal 

Service must do it. A mailer’s decision 

to sort the mail into walk-sequence 

order depends on the menu of rates. If 

a mailer were to prepare a flat-shaped 

Saturation mailing without sequencing 

it, the mailer would have to pay the 5- 

digit presort rate. He would not be 

eligible for the Carrier Route rate 

because line-of-travel sequencing is a 

prerequisite for that rate. Similarly, he 

would not be eligible for the High 

Density rate because walk-sequencing is 

a prerequisite for that rate. 

Absent demand differences,4 the 

relationship between these categories of 

mail suggests that the less deeply 

sequenced categories could serve as 

benchmarks from which the costs 

avoided by more deeply sequenced 

categories could be measured. For 

example, the 5-digit category could be a 

suitable cost avoidance benchmark for 

all of the remaining categories. 

Alternatively, a mailer who presents 

High Density or Saturation mail rather 

than Carrier Route mail to the Postal 

Service does so because the difference 

in his cost between sorting to line of 

travel and sorting to walk-sequence is 

less than the corresponding rate 

difference; otherwise, a prudent mailer 

would not sort the mail in walksequence order. Accordingly, the cost of 

sorting mail to the line-of-travel order as 

reflected in the attributable delivery cost 

of Carrier Route mail could be viewed 

as the appropriate benchmark for both 

High Density and Saturation mail.5

With respect to the relationship 

between High Density and Saturation 

mail, the Postal Service asserts that 

there is no worksharing content 

difference between the two, and 

therefore ECP does not apply. Although 

the Postal Service recognizes that there 

is a cost difference, it contends that it 

is due to density, not to worksharing 

activity. The observed cost difference, 

however, could be characterized as 

gains in efficiency brought about by 

worksharing activity, i.e., the Postal 

Service’s cost per piece of sorting mail 

to walk-sequence order declines as 

density increases.6

Viewed as a worksharing-related cost 

difference, the rate for a High Density 

flat would reflect the difference in 

attributable delivery cost between a 

High Density flat and a Carrier Route 

flat. Similarly, the rate for a Saturation 

flat would reflect the difference in 

attributable delivery cost between a 

Saturation flat and a Carrier Route flat. 

Using the same percentage passthrough 

for each walk-sequencing discount 

would be the mathematical equivalent 

of retaining the link between High 

Density and Saturation mail. 

In addition to commenting on the 

broader, more theoretical questions 

discussed above, the Commission 

invites interested participants to 

comment on the following specific 

issues and questions: 

1. What empirical evidence is there 

supporting the proposition that Carrier 

Route, High Density, and Saturation 

mail each serve separate markets? 

2. If High Density and Saturation mail 

serve the same market, should the 

difference in worksharing unit cost 

between High Density and Saturation 

mail be subject to the standards of 

section 3622(e)? If the answer is no, 

specify why marginal worksharing cost 

differences are not pertinent to rate 

setting. 

3. If Carrier Route and High Density 

mail serve the same market, should rates 

for Saturation mail be set as though it 

serves a separate market, even though it 

is not classified as a separate product? 

4. What bearing does the probability 

of mail receiving automated or manual 

delivery point sequencing have on the 

answers to the above questions? 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. A public forum that addresses the 

issues described in the body of this 

order will be held on August 11, 2009, 

at 1 p.m., in the Commission’s hearing 

room. 

2. Written comments on the matters 

discussed at the public forum as well as 

the issues discussed in the comments 

filed in response to Order No. 192 are 

due on or before August 31, 2009. 

3. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

Issued: July 10, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

Appendix A—Comments on Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on Application 

of Workshare Discount Rate Design 

Principles 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
35902 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Notices 

Participant Title Filing date 

American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO (APWU Comments).Initial Presentation of American Postal Workers Union, AFL– 

CIO.

May 27, 2009. 

Bank of America Corporation, Discover Financial Services, 

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and the American Bankers Association.

Initial Comments of Bank of America Corporation, Discover 

Financial Services, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and the 

Bankers Association.

May 27, 2009. 

Greeting Card Association ......................................................... Initial Comments of the Greeting Card Association ................ May 26, 2009. 

John Haldi (Haldi Comments) ................................................... Statement of John Haldi, Ph.D. Concerning Workshare Discounts.May 26, 2009. 

Mail Order Association of America ............................................ Comments of Mail Order Association of America ................... May 26, 2009. 

Major Mailers Association (MMA Comments) ........................... Initial Comments of Major Mailers Association ........................ May 26, 2009. 

National Postal Policy Council ................................................... Comments of National Postal Policy Council .......................... May 26, 2009. 

Pitney Bowes Inc ....................................................................... Initial Comments of Pitney Bowes Inc ..................................... May 26, 2009. 

Public Representatives (Public Representatives Comments) ... Comments of the Public Representatives ............................... May 26, 2009. 

Stamps.com (Stamps.com Comments) ..................................... Initial Presentation of Stamps.com .......................................... May 26, 2009. 

United States Postal Service (Postal Service Comments) ........ Initial Comments of the United States Postal Service ............. May 26, 2009. 

Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. and Saturation Mailers Coalition 

(Valassis/SMC Comments).

Comments of Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. and Saturation Mailers Coalition.May 26, 2009. 

Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ 

Association, Inc (Valpak Comments).

Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ 

Association, Inc. Comments Regarding Standard Mail Volume Incentive Pricing Program.

May 26, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–17286 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Small Business Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements 

submitted for OMB review. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), agencies are required to 

submit proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements to OMB for 

review and approval, and to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register notifying 

the public that the agency has made 

such a submission. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

August 20, 2009. If you intend to 

comment but cannot prepare comments 

promptly, please advise the OMB 

Reviewer and the Agency Clearance 

Officer before the deadline. 

Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 

83–1), supporting statement, and other 

documents submitted to OMB for 

review may be obtained from the 

Agency Clearance Officer. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

concerning this notice to: Agency 

Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, 

Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 

Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 

20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 

Officer, (202) 205–7044. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Secondary Participation 

Guaranty Agreement. 

SBA Form Numbers: 1086, 1502. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Description of Respondents: SBA 

Participating Lenders. 

Responses: 530. 

Annual Burden: 42,000. 

Title: Applications for Business 

Loans. 

SBA Form Numbers: 4, 4SCH–A, 4I, 

4L. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Description of Respondents: 

Applicants applying for a SBA Loan. 

Responses: 21,000. 

Annual Burden: 295,505. 

Title: Small Business Administration 

(SBA) Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) 

Customer Survey. 

SBA Form Number: N/A. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Description of Respondents: SBG 

Program management to access program 

familiarity in the general small 

contractor population and to help 

determine the potential market for SBA 

surety bond guarantee. 

Responses: 382. 

Annual Burden: 13. 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch. 

[FR Doc. E9–17255 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–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 

September 21, 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 

Barbara Brannan, Special Assistant, 

Office of Surety Guarantee, Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 

8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Brannan, Special Assistant, 

Office of Surety Guarantee 202–205– 

6545 barbara.brannan@sba.gov Curtis B. 

Rich, Management Analyst, 202–205– 

7030 curtis.rich@sba.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA’s 

Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program 

was created to encourage surety 

companies to provide bonding for small 

contractors. The information collected 

on these forms is used to evaluate the 

capability and potential sources of small 

contractors in the SBG Program. 

Title: ‘‘Surety Bond Guarantee 

Assistance.’’ 

Description of Respondents: Surety 

Bond Companies. 

Form Number: 990, 991, 994, 994B, 

994F, 994H. 

Annual Responses: 17,916. 

Annual Burden: 1,959. 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch. 

[FR Doc. E9–17254 Filed 7–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES