Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 75655 

40See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

41See 2007 Principal Trade Rule Release, Section 

II.B.7 (noting commenters that objected to this 

condition as disadvantaging small broker-dealers 

(or affiliated but separate investment advisers and 

broker-dealers)). 

42Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 

(1996) (codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 

U.S.C. and as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601). 

1United States Postal Service Request for SemiPermanent Exception from Periodic Reporting of 

Service Performance Measurement or, in the 

Alternative, Petition for Rulemaking Concerning 39 

CFR 3055.45(a), November 23, 2010 (Request); see 

also Docket No. RM2009–11, Order Establishing 

Final Rules Concerning Periodic Reporting of 

Continued 

objective, while minimizing any 

significant adverse impact on small 

entities.40 Alternatives in this category 

would include: (i) Establishing different 

compliance or reporting standards or 

timetables that take into account the 

resources available to small entities; (ii) 

clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying 

compliance requirements under the rule 

for small entities; (iii) using 

performance rather than design 

standards; and (iv) exempting small 

entities from coverage of the rule, or any 

part of the rule. 

We believe that special compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables for 

small entities, or an exemption from 

coverage for small entities, may create 

the risk that the investors who are 

advised by and effect securities 

transactions through such small entities 

would not receive adequate disclosure. 

Moreover, different disclosure 

requirements could create investor 

confusion if it creates the impression 

that small investment advisers have 

different conflicts of interest with their 

advisory clients in connection with 

principal trading than larger investment 

advisers. We believe, therefore, that it is 

important for the disclosure protections 

required by the rule to be provided to 

advisory clients by all advisers, not just 

those that are not considered small 

entities. Further consolidation or 

simplification of the proposals for 

investment advisers that are small 

entities would be inconsistent with the 

Commission’s goals of fostering investor 

protection. 

We have endeavored through rule 

206(3)–3T to minimize the regulatory 

burden on all investment advisers 

eligible to rely on the rule, including 

small entities, while meeting our 

regulatory objectives. It was our goal to 

ensure that eligible small entities may 

benefit from the Commission’s approach 

to the new rule to the same degree as 

other eligible advisers. The condition 

that advisers seeking to rely on the rule 

must also be registered as broker-dealers 

and that each account with respect to 

which an adviser seeks to rely on the 

rule must be a brokerage account subject 

to the Exchange Act, and the rules 

thereunder, and the rules of the selfregulatory organization(s) of which it is 

a member, reflect what we believe is an 

important element of our balancing 

between easing regulatory burdens (by 

affording advisers an alternative means 

of compliance with section 206(3) of the 

Act) and meeting our investor 

protection objectives.41 Finally, we do 

not consider using performance rather 

than design standards to be consistent 

with our statutory mandate of investor 

protection in the present context. 

G. Solicitation of Comments 

We solicit written comments 

regarding our analysis. We request 

comment on whether the rule will have 

any effects that we have not discussed. 

We request that commenters describe 

the nature of any impact on small 

entities and provide empirical data to 

support the extent of the impact. 

Do small investment advisers believe 

an alternative means of compliance with 

section 206(3) of the Advisers Act 

should be available to more of them? 

VIII. Consideration of Impact on the 

Economy 

For purposes of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, or ‘‘SBREFA,’’ 42 we must advise 

OMB whether a proposed regulation 

constitutes a ‘‘major’’ rule. Under 

SBREFA, a rule is considered ‘‘major’’ 

where, if adopted, it results in or is 

likely to result in: (1) An annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; (2) a major increase in costs or 

prices for consumers or individual 

industries; or (3) significant adverse 

effects on competition, investment or 

innovation. 

We request comment on the potential 

impact of the proposed amendment on 

the economy on an annual basis. 

Commenters are requested to provide 

empirical data and other factual support 

for their views to the extent possible. 

IX. Statutory Authority 

The Commission is proposing to 

amend rule 206(3)–3T pursuant to 

sections 206A and 211(a) of the 

Advisers Act. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 275 

Investment advisers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Text of Proposed Rule Amendment 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows. 

PART 275—RULES AND 

REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT 

ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 

1. The authority citation for part 275 

continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b–2(a)(11)(G), 80b– 

2(a)(17), 80b–3, 80b–4, 80b–4a, 80b–6(4), 

80b–6a, and 80b–11, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

§ 275.206(3)–3T [Amended] 

2. In § 275.206(3)–3T, amend 

paragraph (d) by removing the words 

‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and adding in their 

place ‘‘December 31, 2012.’’ 

Dated: December 1, 2010. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30590 Filed 12–2–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3055 

[Docket No. RM2011–4; Order No. 600] 

Periodic Reporting Rules 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service has filed a 

request for a semi-permanent waiver of 

periodic reporting rules concerning 

service performance for First-Class Mail 

Flats at the District level or, in the 

alternative, a rulemaking petition 

seeking deletion of this reporting 

requirement. This document addresses 

the Postal Service’s filing and identifies 

related procedural steps, including a 

request for public comments. 

DATES: Comments are due: December 

14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system. Commenters who 

cannot submit filings electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section for advice on alternatives. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at stephen.sharfman@prc.gov or 202– 

789–6820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 23, 2010, the Postal Service 

filed a request for a semi-permanent 

exception from periodic reporting of 

service performance measurement for 

First-Class Mail Flats at the District 

level pursuant to Commission Order No. 

465 and 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(1).1


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
75656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 233 / Monday, December 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Service Performance Measurements and Customer 

Satisfaction, May 25, 2010, at 22 (Order No. 465). 

2 Docket No. RM2011–1, United States Postal 

Service Notice of Provisional Partial Withdrawal of 

Request for Temporary Waiver, November 24, 2010. 

Alternatively, the Postal Service 

petitions the Commission to initiate a 

rulemaking to remove the requirement 

to report service performance 

measurement for First-Class Mail Flats 

at the District level from the 

Commission’s rules of practice and 

procedure. See 39 CFR 3055.45(a). 

Concomitantly, the Postal Service filed 

a provisional notice of withdrawal from 

a separate request for a temporary 

waiver of this reporting 

requirement.2 See Docket No. RM2011– 

1. 

Specifically, the Postal Service 

requests that the Commission grant one 

of the following extraordinary remedies: 

(1) Allow a semi-permanent exception 

for quarterly, district-level reporting of 

First-Class Mail Flats under 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(1), on the basis of the undue 

burden that a $4 million measurement 

cost would impose on the Postal 

Service’s financial position; (2) allow a 

semi-permanent exception on an 

extraordinary basis, not under 39 CFR 

3055.3(a)(1), for the same reason; or (3) 

amend 39 CFR 3055.45(a)(1) and (2) to 

delete the word ‘‘District.’’ Request at 7. 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–4 for consideration of 

matters related to the proposed semipermanent exception from periodic 

reporting of service performance 

measurement identified in the Postal 

Service’s Request. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s Request is consistent with the 

policies of 39 U.S.C. 3652(a)(2) and 39 

CFR 3055.3. Comments are due no later 

than December 14, 2010. The Postal 

Service’s Request can be accessed via 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Emmett 

Rand Costich to serve as Public 

Representative in the captioned 

proceedings. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–4 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Postal Service’s 

Request. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

December 14, 2010. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Emmett 

Rand Costich 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. 2010–30448 Filed 12–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0934; A–1–FRL– 

9235–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Determination of 

Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth (SE), New Hampshire 

moderate 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area continues to attain 

the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. 

This determination is based upon 

complete, quality-assured, certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period. 

Preliminary data available through June 

15, 2010 also are consistent with 

continued attainment. In addition, in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is proposing to determine that this area 

has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS as 

of June 15, 2010, its applicable 

attainment date. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0934 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0934, ’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

0934. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1