36276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Filing Two Functionally Equivalent Global Plus 1 

Contracts Negotiated Service Agreements, July 13, 

2009 (Notice). 

2See Docket No. CP2008–8 through CP2008–10, 

PRC Order No. 85, Order Concerning Global Plus 

Negotiated Service Agreements, June 27, 2008. 

3See Docket No.CP2008–8, Notice of United 

States Postal Service of Governors’ Decision 

Establishing Prices and Classifications for Global 

Plus Contracts, June 2, 2008, at 1. 

4The Postal Service states the commitments also 

account for Global Bulk Economy and Global Direct 

items mailed under a separate but related Global 

Plus 2 contract with each customer. The Global Plus 

2 contracts are the subject of a separate competitive 

products proceeding. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John P. Boska, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch I–1, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17386 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47; 

Order No. 249] 

New Competitive Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 

recently-filed Postal Service request to 

add two additional Global Plus 1 

contracts to the Competitive Product 

List. This notice addresses procedural 

steps associated with these filings. 

DATES: Comments are due July 23, 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. Background 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Background 

On July 13, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3633 and 39 CFR 3015.5, announcing 

that it has entered into two additional 

Global Plus 1 contracts, which it states 

fits within the previously established 

Global Plus Contracts product.1 The 

Postal Service states that the instant 

contracts are functionally equivalent to 

previously submitted Global Plus 1 

contracts, are filed in accordance with 

Order No. 85, and are supported by 

Governors’ Decision No. 08–8 filed in 

Docket No. CP2008–8.2 Notice at 1. 

The Notice also states that in Docket 

No. CP2008–8, the Governors have 

established prices and classifications for 

competitive products not of general 

applicability for Global Plus Contracts.3

The Postal Service states that the instant 

contracts are the immediate successor 

contracts to those in Docket Nos. 

CP2008–9 and CP2008–10, both of 

which are to expire soon, which the 

Commission found to be functionally 

equivalent in Order No. 85. 

The Postal Service contends that the 

instant contracts should be included 

within the Global Plus 1 product on the 

Competitive Product List. Id. 

In support, the Postal Service has also 

filed redacted versions of each contract 

and related materials as Attachments 1– 

A and 1–B. Redacted versions of the 

certified statements required by 39 CFR 

3015.5 are included as Attachments 2– 

A and 2–B, respectively. The Postal 

Service states that the contracts should 

be included within the Global Plus 1 

product and requests that the instant 

contracts be considered the ‘‘baseline 

contracts for future functional 

equivalency analyses concerning this 

product.’’ Id. at 2. 

The instant contracts. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contracts 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. The 

contracts become effective August 1, 

2009, unless regulatory reviews affect 

that date, and have a one-year term. 

The Postal Service maintains that 

certain portions of each contract and 

certified statement required by 39 CFR 

3015.5(c)(2), containing names and 

identifying information of the Global 

Plus 1 customers, related financial 

information, as well as the 

accompanying analyses that provide 

prices, terms, conditions, and financial 

projections should remain under seal. 

Id. at 3. 

The Postal Service asserts the 

contracts are functionally equivalent 

because they share similar cost and 

market characteristics and should be 

classified as a single product. Id. at 3. 

It states that while the precursor 

contracts filed in Docket Nos. CP2008– 

9 and CP2008–10 exhibited minor 

distinctions based on differences in 

customers’ negotiations, business needs 

or relationship with the Postal Service, 

the new versions of the agreements 

differ primarily in the method used for 

structuring the discounts offered. Id. at 

4. The Postal Service also states that the 

instant contracts’ customers are the 

same Postal Qualified Wholesalers 

(PQWs) as the parties to the contracts in 

Docket Nos. CP2008–9 and CP2008–10. 

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 

International Priority Airmail (IPA), 

International Surface Air Lift (ISAL), 

Express Mail International (EMI), and 

Priority Mail International (PMI).4

The Postal Service indicates that the 

instant contracts have material 

differences which include removing 

retroactivity provisions; clarifying 

aspects subject to regulatory oversight; 

expanding entry locations; restructuring 

price incentives, commitments, and 

penalties; and clarifying the parties’ 

obligations in the event of termination. 

Id. at 4–7. 

The Postal Service maintains these 

differences only add detail or amplify 

processes included in prior Global Plus 

1 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 

7–8. It states the contracts are 

substantially similar both to one another 

and to the precursor Global Plus 1 

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. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47 for 

consideration of the matters related to 

the contract 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. CP2009–46 and CP2009–47 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36277 

1Applicants request that the relief also apply to 

any other registered management investment 

company that currently, or in the future, is part of 

the same ‘‘group of investment companies’’ as the 

Trusts, as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the 

Act (included in the term ‘‘Trusts’’). All entities that 

currently intend to rely on the requested order have 

been named as applicants. Any other entity that 

relies on the requested order in the future will 

comply with the terms and conditions set forth in 

the application. 

2Each of Alger LargeCap Growth Fund, Alger 

SmallCap Growth Institutional Fund, Alger MidCap 

Growth Institutional Fund, Alger LargeCap Growth 

Institutional Fund and Alger Capital Appreciation 

Institutional Fund is prohibited from ‘‘making loans 

to others, except through purchasing qualified debt 

obligations, lending portfolio securities or entering 

into repurchase agreements.’’ 

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. E9–17496 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Investment Company Act Release No. 

28819; File No. 812–13578] 

The Alger Funds, et al.; Notice of 

Application 

July 16, 2009. 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice of an application for an 

order pursuant to (a) section 6(c) of the 

Investment Company Act of 1940 

(‘‘Act’’) granting an exemption from 

sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) 

section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an 

exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the 

Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the 

Act granting an exemption from sections 

17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; 

and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 

17d–1 under the Act to permit certain 

joint arrangements. 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION: 

Applicants request an order that would 

permit certain registered open-end 

management investment companies to 

participate in a joint lending and 

borrowing facility. 

Applicants: The Alger Funds, The 

Alger American Fund, The Alger 

Institutional Funds, The Alger Funds II 

(formerly, The Spectra Funds), and 

Alger China-U.S. Growth Fund 

(formerly, The China-U.S. Growth Fund) 

(each, a ‘‘Trust’’ and collectively, the 

‘‘Trusts’’), and Fred Alger Management, 

Inc. (‘‘FAM’’). 

Filing Dates: The application was 

filed on September 25, 2008 and 

amended on March 12, 2009, June 24, 

2009 and July 14, 2009. 

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An 

order granting the application will be 

issued unless the Commission orders a 

hearing. Interested persons may request 

a hearing by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary and serving 

applicants with a copy of the request, 

personally or by mail. Hearing requests 

should be received by the Commission 

by 5:30 p.m. on August 10, 2009, and 

should be accompanied by proof of 

service on applicants, in the form of an 

affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of 

service. Hearing requests should state 

the nature of the writer’s interest, the 

reason for the request, and the issues 

contested. Persons who wish to be 

notified of a hearing may request 

notification by writing to the 

Commission’s Secretary. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission, 100 F 

Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20549– 

1090. Applicants, 111 Fifth Avenue, 

New York, New York 10003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill 

Ehrlich, Attorney Adviser, at (202) 551– 

6819 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, 

at (202) 551–6821 (Division of 

Investment Management, Office of 

Investment Company Regulation). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a summary of the 

application. The complete application 

may be obtained via the Commission’s 

Web site by searching for the file 

number, or an applicant using the 

Company name box, at http:// 

www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by 

calling (202) 551–8090. 

Applicants’ Representations 

1. Each Trust is organized as a 

Massachusetts business trust and is 

registered under the Act as an open-end 

management investment company. Each 

Trust consists of one or more series 

(‘‘Funds’’). FAM, a New York 

corporation and an indirect whollyowned subsidiary of Alger Associates, 

Inc., is registered as an investment 

adviser under the Investment Advisers 

Act of 1940 and serves as the 

investment adviser and administrator of 

each Fund.1

2. Some Funds may make short-term 

loans to banks or other entities by 

purchasing bank time deposits. Other 

Funds may need to borrow money from 

the same or similar banks for temporary 

purposes to satisfy redemption requests, 

to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls 

such as a trade ‘‘fail’’ in which cash 

payment for a security sold by a Fund 

has been delayed, or for other temporary 

purposes. Currently, certain Funds have 

access to uncommitted bank loans from 

their custodian bank for temporary 

borrowing purposes. 

3. If Funds borrow from their 

custodian, they pay interest on the loan 

at a rate that is significantly higher than 

the rate that is earned by other (nonborrowing) Funds on investments in 

bank time deposits. Applicants assert 

that this differential represents the 

profit earned by the lender on loans and 

is not attributable to any material 

difference in the credit quality or risk of 

such transactions. In addition, while 

bank borrowings generally could supply 

needed cash to cover unanticipated 

redemptions and sales fails, the 

borrowing Funds would incur 

commitment fees and/or other charges 

involved in obtaining a bank loan. 

4. The Trusts seek to enter into master 

interfund lending agreements 

(‘‘Interfund Lending Agreements’’) with 

each other on behalf of the Funds that 

would permit each Fund to lend money 

directly to and borrow directly from 

other Funds through a credit facility for 

temporary purposes (an ‘‘Interfund 

Loan’’). Applicants believe that the 

proposed credit facility would both 

substantially reduce the Funds’ 

potential borrowing costs and enhance 

the ability of the lending Funds to earn 

higher rates of interest on their shortterm lendings. Although the proposed 

credit facility would substantially 

reduce the Funds’ need to borrow from 

banks, the Funds would be free to 

establish and maintain committed lines 

of credit or other borrowing 

arrangements with unaffiliated banks. 

Alger Money Market Fund, a series of 

The Alger Funds, will not participate as 

a borrower in the proposed credit 

facility. Additionally, a number of 

Funds are barred by their fundamental 

policies from participating as lenders in 

the proposed credit facility.2

5. Applicants anticipate that the 

proposed credit facility would provide a 

borrowing Fund with significant savings 

at times when the cash position of the 

borrowing Fund is insufficient to meet 

temporary cash requirements. This 

situation could arise when shareholder 

redemptions exceed anticipated 

volumes and certain Funds have 

insufficient cash on hand to satisfy such 

redemptions. When the Funds liquidate 

portfolio securities to meet redemption 

requests, they often do not receive 

payment in settlement for up to three 

days (or longer for certain foreign 

transactions). However, redemption 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES