Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70755 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service of 

Classification Change Related to Combined 

Mailings of Standard Mail and Periodicals, 

November 5, 2010 (Notice). 

established by the Governors.1 The 

change affects bundle and container 

charges for Outside County Periodicals 

pieces in combined mailings of 

Standard Mail and Periodicals. Id. at 1. 

An attachment to the Notice presents 

conforming revisions to the Mail 

Classification Schedule (MCS). These 

revisions affect Periodicals MCS section 

1320.4, Price Categories. They do not 

affect any Standard Mail sections in the 

MCS, nor do they affect any Within 

County MCS sections. The Notice does 

not provide a date certain for the 

planned change. 

II. Additional Details 

Relationship to co-mailing and copalletizing. The Postal Service notes 

that the planned change means that 

when bundles or containers include 

both Standard Mail and Periodicals 

pieces, the Outside County Periodicals 

bundle and container prices apply based 

on the proportion of Periodicals pieces 

in bundles or weight in the container. 

Id. It explains: 

Specifically, mailers using the Mixed Class 

preparation option may combine Standard 

Mail and Periodicals mailpieces within the 

same bundle (comail), or combine separate 

same-class bundles on the same pallet 

(copalletize), to maximize presorting or to 

qualify for deeper destination entry 

discounts. 

Id. 

The Postal Service asserts, without 

elaboration, that the changes provide ‘‘a 

fair price application for Mixed Class 

mailings of Standard Mail and 

Periodicals.’’ Id. In a similar vein, it also 

asserts that it believes the changes are 

consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 

should be incorporated by the 

Commission into the MCS. Id. 

III. Commission Analysis and Initial 

Action 

Rules 3020.90 and 91, which the 

Postal Service cites as the 

administrative vehicle for its filing, are 

part of Subpart E of Part 3020—Product 

Lists. This subpart is captioned 

‘‘Requests Initiated by the Postal Service 

to Change the Mail Classification 

Schedule.’’ The first two individual 

rules within this subpart address Postal 

Service responsibilities. They require 

that the Postal Service assure that 

product descriptions in the MCS 

accurately reflect current offerings 

(§ 3020.90) and submit corrections that 

do not constitute a proposal to modify 

the product lists by filing a notice of the 

proposed change no later than 15 days 

prior to effective date (§ 3020.91). 

The remaining two rules address 

Commission responsibilities. They 

require the Commission to publish the 

proposed change on its Web site and 

provide interested persons with an 

opportunity to comment on the 

consistency of the planned change with 

39 U.S.C. 3642 (§ 3020.92). They also 

require the Commission to review the 

change and comments and, upon a 

finding that there is no inconsistency 

with 39 U.S.C. 3642, to change the MCS 

to coincide with the effective date of the 

change (§ 3020.93(a)). 

The rules in Subpart E were adopted 

as part of a series of rulemakings 

implementing the Postal Accountability 

and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006. 

At the time, the Commission viewed 

Subpart E as a vehicle for minor 

classification changes. The Postal 

Service’s Notice indicates that it 

considers Subpart E as an appropriate 

vehicle for effecting the modification 

proposed here, which it characterizes as 

a matter of rate application for practices 

associated with co-mailing and copalletizing in mixed class mailings. 

The Commission interprets the Postal 

Service’s presentation of proposed MCS 

revisions and its assertion regarding 

consistency with 39 U.S.C. 3642, which 

addresses changes to the product lists, 

as a demonstration of its interest in 

facial compliance with Subpart E 

requirements and the apparent lack of 

other viable alternatives under the 

existing administrative framework. 

With the perspective gained over the 

past few years, it appears that Subpart 

E may not be optimally suited for the 

type of change the Postal Service 

proposes here. This is because the 

proposal may have rate and price cap 

implications, raising questions about 

how the Commission’s compliance 

function will be affected. At the same 

time, it is also appears that no practical 

alternative exists for expedited 

consideration of the proposal, and that 

compliance concerns can be addressed, 

at least preliminarily, in the context of 

this case. 

The Commission therefore establishes 

Docket No. MC2011–5, Modification of 

Mail Classification Schedule Regarding 

Combined Mailings of Standard Mail 

and Periodicals, to address the Postal 

Service’s filing. In conformance with 

rule 3020.92, the planned change 

appears on the Commission’s Web site. 

In addition, the Notice will be 

published in the Federal Register. The 

Commission invites interested persons 

to comment on the consistency of the 

change with 39 U.S.C. 3622 and 3642. 

Comments are due no later than 

November 24, 2010. 

In conformance with 39 U.S.C. 505, 

the Commission appoints Robert N. 

Sidman to represent the interests of the 

general public in this proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MC2011–5, Modification of Mail 

Classification Schedule Regarding 

Combined Mailings of Standard Mail 

and Periodicals, for consideration of 

matters raised in the Postal Service’s 

Notice. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Robert 

N. Sidman is designated officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

3. Comments are due no later than 

November 24, 2010. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this notice and order in 

the Federal Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29083 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

PRESIDIO TRUST 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust. 

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with § 103(c)(6) 

of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 

460bb appendix, and in accordance 

with the Presidio Trust’s bylaws, notice 

is hereby given that a public meeting of 

the Presidio Trust Board of Directors 

will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on 

Wednesday, December 8, 2010, at the 

Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, 

Presidio of San Francisco, California. 

The Presidio Trust was created by 

Congress in 1996 to manage 

approximately eighty percent of the 

former U.S. Army base known as the 

Presidio, in San Francisco, California. 

The purposes of this meeting are to 

approve minutes of a previous Board 

meeting, to provide the Executive 

Director’s report, to provide the 

Chairperson’s report, to provide the 

Finance and Audit Committee report, to 

approve a Revised Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Forecast and Five-Year 

Construction Plan, to provide project 

updates, and to receive public comment 

on other matters in accordance with the 

Trust’s Public Outreach Policy. 

Individuals requiring special 

accommodation at this meeting, such as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70756 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

needing a sign language interpreter, 

should contact Mollie Matull at 

415.561.5300 prior to December 1, 2010. 

Time: The meeting will begin at 6:30 

p.m. on Wednesday, December 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, 

Presidio of San Francisco. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Cook, General Counsel, the 

Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. 

Box 29052, San Francisco, California 

94129–0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29133 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63309; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2010–16] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing of Amendments 

to Rule G–5, on Disciplinary Actions by 

Appropriate Regulatory Agencies, 

Remedial Notices by Registered 

Securities Associations; and Rule G– 

17, on Conduct of Municipal Securities 

Activities 

November 12, 2010. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘the 

Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on November 

1, 2010, the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board (‘‘Board’’ or ‘‘MSRB’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the MSRB. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The MSRB is filing a proposed rule 

change consisting of amendments to 

Rule G–5, on disciplinary actions by 

appropriate regulatory agencies, and 

Rule G–17, the Board’s basic fair 

practice rule, to apply the rules to 

municipal advisors. The text of the 

proposed rule change is available on the 

MSRB’s Web site at http:// 

www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC–Filings/2010– 

Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal 

office, and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

MSRB included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. The Board has 

prepared summaries, set forth in Section 

A, B, and C below, of the most 

significant aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Rule G–5 currently provides that 

brokers, dealers, and municipal 

securities dealers (‘‘dealers’’) may not 

engage in municipal securities activities 

in contravention of restrictions imposed 

on them by the Commission, a 

registered securities association, or 

another appropriate regulatory agency. 

The purposes of the portion of the 

proposed rule change consisting of 

amendments to Rule G–5 are to remove 

a reference to an outdated NASD rule 

and to provide that municipal advisors 

and their associated persons may not 

engage in the municipal advisory 

activities described in Section 

15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act in 

contravention of restrictions imposed 

upon them by the Commission. 

Rule G–17 currently provides that, in 

the conduct of its municipal securities 

activities, each dealer shall deal fairly 

with all persons and shall not engage in 

any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair 

practice. The purpose of the portion of 

the proposed rule change consisting of 

amendments to Rule G–17 is to apply 

the MSRB’s core fair dealing rule to 

municipal advisors in the same manner 

that it currently applies to dealers. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The MSRB believes that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

15B(b)(2) of the Act, which provides 

that: 

The Board shall propose and adopt rules to 

effect the purposes of this title with respect 

to transactions in municipal securities 

effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal 

securities dealers and advice provided to or 

on behalf of municipal entities or obligated 

persons by brokers, dealers, municipal 

securities dealers, and municipal advisors 

with respect to municipal financial products, 

the issuance of municipal securities, and 

solicitations of municipal entities or 

obligated persons undertaken by brokers, 

dealers, municipal securities dealers, and 

municipal advisors. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 

provides that the rules of the MSRB 

shall: 

be designed to prevent fraudulent and 

manipulative acts and practices, to promote 

just and equitable principles of trade, to 

foster cooperation and coordination with 

persons engaged in regulating, clearing, 

settling, processing information with respect 

to, and facilitating transactions in municipal 

securities and municipal financial products, 

to remove impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market in 

municipal securities and municipal financial 

products, and, in general, to protect 

investors, municipal entities, obligated 

persons, and the public interest. 

The proposed rule change is 

consistent with Section 15B(b)(2) of the 

Act, because it provides that: (i) 

Municipal advisors shall deal fairly 

with all persons and not engage in any 

deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice 

and (ii) municipal advisors and their 

associated persons shall not conduct the 

activities described in Section 

15B(e)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act in 

contravention of restrictions imposed 

upon them by the Commission. 

Section 15B(2)(L) of the Act requires 

that rules adopted by the Board 

not impose a regulatory burden on small 

municipal advisors that is not necessary or 

appropriate in the public interest and for the 

protection of investors, municipal entities, 

and obligated persons, provided that there is 

robust protection of investors against fraud. 

The proposed rule change is 

necessary for the robust protection of 

investors against fraud. Many municipal 

advisors play a key role in the 

structuring of offerings of municipal 

securities and the preparation of 

offering documents used to market those 

securities to investors. In some cases, 

they advise on the appropriateness of 

derivatives entered into by municipal 

issuers, the effectiveness of which may 

have a substantial impact on the 

finances of those issuers. In other cases, 

they solicit public pension fund 

investment advisory business that, if not 

conducted according to the highest 

standards, may have a substantial effect 

on the finances of the State and local 

governments that control those funds. 

Investors, therefore, have a substantial 

interest in municipal advisors 

conducting their municipal advisory 

activities fairly, not engaging in 

fraudulent conduct, and not engaging in 

municipal advisory activities contrary to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES