34376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 

4Attachment 1 was revised by Notice of United 

States Postal Service of Filing Erratum to 

Attachment 1 to Notice of United States Postal 

Service of Filing Functionally Equivalent Inbound 

Direct Entry Contracts Negotiated Service 

Agreement, June 30, 2009. 

5The Postal Service states that the other domestic 

mail services are the same as in Docket Nos. 

CP2008–14 and CP2008–15, but the instant contract 

reflects the updated Priority Mail rate structure 

based on the price adjustments for competitive 

products in Docket CP2009–8. 

fee. The core of the service is the sack 

handling and entry as domestic mail 

and it is not dependent on the 

underlying domestic mail services. The 

Postal Service states that the instant 

contract is functionally equivalent to the 

IDE contracts previously submitted, fits 

within the Mail Classification Schedule 

(MCS) language included as Attachment 

A to Governors’ Decision No. 08–6 and 

should be included within the IDE 

Contracts product. Notice at 2. 

The instant contract. The Postal 

Service filed the instant contract 

pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5. The contract 

is with P&T Express Mail Service Joint 

Stock Company (VNPE). VNPE is 

established under the auspices of the 

Vietnam Post and Telecommunications 

Group, the public postal administration 

for Vietnam, responsible for Vietnam’s 

compliance with international 

obligations relative to Express Mail 

Service. The Postal Service submitted 

the contract and supporting material 

under seal and attached a redacted copy 

of the contract and certified statement 

required by 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2) to the 

Notice. Id., Attachments 1 and 2 

respectively.4

The Postal Service will notify the 

customer of the effective date of the 

contract within 30 days after receiving 

all regulatory approvals. The contract 

term is 1 year from the effective date. 

The contract is subject to automatic 

renewal after the 1 year term unless the 

parties determine otherwise. Id., 

Attachment 1. 

The Notice advances reasons why the 

instant IDE contract fits within the Mail 

Classification Schedule language for IDE 

contracts. The Postal Service states that 

the instant contract is functionally 

equivalent to the IDE contracts filed 

previously because it shares similar cost 

and market characteristics and 

therefore, the contracts should be 

classified as a single product. Id. at 3– 

4. It states that in Governors’ Decision 

No. 08–6, a pricing formula and 

classification system were established to 

ensure that each contract meets the 

statutory and regulatory requirements of 

39 U.S.C. 3633. The Postal Service states 

that the costs of each contract must 

conform to a common description and 

the contract language of the MCS 

prescribes that each IDE contract must 

cover its attributable costs. Id. 

The Postal Service reports that the 

instant contract covers the same 

domestic services as those in Docket 

Nos. CP2008–14 and CP2008–15 except 

for the addition of the Priority Mail 

small flat rate box. It asserts that in 

‘‘almost all substantive respects,’’ the 

instant IDE contract resembles the 

contracts in CP2008–14 and CP2008–15. 

Id. at 4. The Postal Service contends 

that even though fees or the underlying 

domestic services offered may be 

different, these distinctions do not affect 

the contracts’ functional equivalence 

because the total costs associated with 

IDE Contracts are volume variable and 

the basic service offered of handling 

inbound sacks in the domestic mail 

stream is the same. Id. Other changes 

include language to update changes in 

policies and product structures and 

terms to clarify the applicability of 

Postal Service export requirements. Id. 

The Postal Service also affirms the 

instant contract has material differences 

reflected in the language of this 

agreement compared to other IDE 

contracts. Id. These differences include: 

(1) The 1 year term of the instant 

contract is subject to automatic renewal 

which differs from the contracts in 

CP2008–14 and CP2008–15 which are 

automatically renewed unless 

terminated; (2) Priority Mail small flat 

rate box has been added as a domestic 

mail type which Vietnam Post can 

access via IDE service while other 

included domestic mail services 

included are the same as in previous 

contracts but have updated rate 

structures; 5 (3) terms are included 

which express the parties’ wish to 

explore future opportunities for volume 

based discounts which the Postal 

Service states does not represent a new 

commitment; (4) terms that clarify 

charges for non-conforming size or 

weight items, and Delivery 

Confirmation charges for First-Class 

Mail parcel items; (5) language which 

explains the need for a permit 

application fee; (6) terms which address 

changes to IDE customer payment 

requirements upon detention or seizure 

of mail by Customs and Border 

Protection; and (7) terms to explain the 

use of the Centralized Trust Account 

payment method as applicable to 

Vietnam’s financial regulatory 

requirements which were not offered in 

the contract for CP2008–14. Id. at 5–6. 

The Postal Service maintains that 

these differences only add detail or 

amplify processes included in previous 

IDE contracts and do not affect the 

fundamental service being offered or the 

essential structure of the contracts. Id. at 

7. It asserts that the contracts are 

substantially equivalent in all pertinent 

respects. Id. 

The Postal Service maintains that 

certain portions of the contract and 

certified statement required by 39 CFR 

3015.5(c)(2), related financial 

information, portions of the certified 

statement which contain costs and 

pricing as well as the accompanying 

analyses that provide prices, terms, 

conditions, and financial projections 

should remain under seal. Id. at 2–3. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–41 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 

contract is consistent with the policies 

of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3622, or 3642. 

Comments are due no later than July 10, 

2009. 

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 this docket. 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is Ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2009–41 for consideration of the 

issues raised in this docket. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

these proceedings are due no later than 

July 10, 2009. 

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

Harrington 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. 

Dated: July 1, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–16584 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. R2009–4; Order No. 236] 

Postal Service Price Changes 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Approval of price changes. 

DATES: Implementation is scheduled for 

July 19, 2009. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 34377 

1United States Postal Service Notice of MarketDominant Price Adjustment, June 1, 2009 (Request). 

2PRC Order No. 220, Notice and Order 

Concerning Price Adjustment for Standard Mail 

High Density Flats, June 4, 2009 (Order No. 220). 

3Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, June 5, 

2009 (CHIR No. 1). 

4Response of the United States Postal Service to 

Chairman’s Information Request No. 1, June 12, 

2009. 

5 Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. and 

Valpak Dealers’ Association, Inc. Comments 

Regarding Price Adjustment for Standard Mail High 

Density Flats (Valpak Comments), Public 

Representative Comments in Response to Notice of 

Price Adjustment for Standard Mail High Density 

Flats (Public Representative Comments), Comments 

of the Newspaper Association of America on Notice 

of Market-Dominant Price Adjustment (NAA 

Comments), all filed June 22, 2009. 

6Response of the United States Postal Service to 

Order No. 220 (Postal Service Comments), June 22, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6924 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUMMARY: This document discusses the 

Commission’s consideration and 

approval of a Postal Service request to 

reduce prices for a component of the 

mail stream referred to as Standard Mail 

high density flats. The approval means 

that the Postal Service may implement 

the planned price reductions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 27843 (June 11, 2009). 

I. Introduction 

On June 1, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a notice with the Commission 

announcing its intention to adjust prices 

for Standard Mail High Density flat 

pieces pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622 and 

39 CFR Part 3010.1 The proposed 

adjustment (decrease) has a planned 

implementation date of July 19, 2009. 

The Postal Service submits that this 

proposal represents a way that it can 

take advantage of its greater pricing 

flexibility for market dominant products 

under the Postal Accountability and 

Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 

109–435, 120 Stat. 3218 (2006), to 

‘‘respond quickly and flexibly to 

perceived needs in the mailing 

community.’’ Id. at 3. 

In Order No. 220, the Commission 

established Docket No. R2009–4 to 

consider matters raised by the Postal 

Service’s filing, appointed a public 

representative, and afforded interested 

persons an opportunity to comment on 

specific issues as well as any other 

matters related to the Postal Service’s 

filing.2 In particular, the Commission 

sought comment on whether the price 

cap and unused rate adjustment 

authority were applicable to this overall 

price decrease. 

On June 5, 2009, Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 1 was issued.3

CHIR No. 1 sought information from the 

Postal Service with respect to price 

adjustment authority and annual 

limitation calculations. The Postal 

Service filed its response to the 

Chairman’s Information Request on June 

12, 2009.4

This case raises the issue of how the 

Commission should address a rate 

decrease in a period of deflation. The 

Postal Service’s proposal was not 

opposed by any commenter. The 

Commission finds the Postal Service’s 

proposal to be appropriate given the 

unique factual circumstances of this 

case. The Commission will initiate one 

or more rulemakings to consider 

revising its rules to address issues 

concerning application of the price cap 

and calculation of rate adjustment 

authority. 

II. Postal Service Request 

The Postal Service explains that it has 

heard the concerns expressed by High 

Density flats mailers on the detrimental 

impact that the above-average price 

increases implemented on May 11, 

2009, will have on their businesses. 

Request at 2. After taking these concerns 

into consideration, the Postal Service 

determined that High Density flat prices 

that reflect an increase from the 

previous year similar to the average 

Standard Mail increase are more 

appropriate at this time. Id. As a result, 

the Postal Service seeks to change the 

current rates for Standard Mail High 

Density flats. It asserts that the proposed 

reduced rates could potentially avoid 

diversion of large mail volumes from the 

postal system. Id. at 5. 

The Postal Service’s proposal reduces 

prices for the Standard Mail High 

Density flats price categories for both 

commercial and nonprofit mailpieces. 

Id. at 2. The adjustment decreases the 

minimum per-piece prices for 

commercial and nonprofit High Density 

flats by 0.1 cent, and decreases the 

pound price element for commercial 

and nonprofit High Density flats to 

match the Standard Mail Saturation flats 

pound price element. The per-piece 

price element for pound-rated pieces 

increases by 0.7 cents per piece to 

‘‘ensure a smooth transition at the 

breakpoint,’’ according to the Postal 

Service. Id. at 3. Dropship discounts for 

High Density flats do not change under 

this proposal. 

III. Comments 

Several parties filed comments in this 

case: Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, 

Inc. and Valpak Dealers’ Association, 

Inc., the Public Representative, and 

Newspaper Association of America.5 In 

addition, the Postal Service responded 

to questions posed in Order No. 220 

concerning the Request.6 The parties’ 

comments are summarized below. 

Valpak comments. Valpak argues that 

the Commission’s rules should apply to 

price decreases, and that the 

Commission did not intend to permit all 

types of rate decreases without any 

Commission review. In support, it cites 

to the Commission’s rules which, for the 

most part, discuss the price cap in terms 

of ‘‘adjustments’’ rather than increases 

or decreases. Valpak Comments at 2. 

Valpak submits that in the current 

‘‘abnormal economic circumstances’’ 

application of the Commission’s rules 

can create ‘‘strange results.’’ Id. It 

believes that the proper response may 

be to modify the Commission’s rules on 

this subject. The better approach here, 

according to Valpak, would have been 

for the Postal Service to file a motion to 

waive the filing requirements or request 

another type of one-time relief. Id. at 4. 

Public Representative comments. 

First, the Public Representative points 

out that the Postal Service does not 

provide any support or estimate for its 

claim that the request ‘‘could potentially 

avoid diversion of large volumes’’ of 

High Density flat mail. Public 

Representative Comments at 1–2. 

Second, the Public Representative 

contends, based on the text of 39 U.S.C. 

3622(d)(1), that the price cap does not 

apply to price decreases. Such an 

application would be ‘‘illogical,’’ 

according to the Public Representative. 

He notes that the PAEA does not 

include any provision suggesting that a 

rate decrease must be at least as great as 

the drop in consumer price index. He 

also discusses Congress’ purpose in 

creating the price cap limitation—to 

create a ceiling to ensure against 

unreasonable price increases—a concern 

that is not present when rates are 

decreasing. Id. at 3–8. 

Third, the Public Representative 

contends that in the absence of a price 

increase calculation, the Postal Service’s 

unused rate adjustment authority is not 

required or needed. In support of this 

conclusion, he cites certain Commission 

rules which he believes demonstrate 

that the annual limitation and unused 

rate adjustment authority only apply to 

rate increases. With respect to whether 

the Postal Service can waive unused 

rate adjustment authority, he believes 

this issue is ‘‘moot’’ because this rate 

decrease does not generate any unused 

rate adjustment authority since 

consumer prices have decreased. Id. at 

8–9. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
34378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 

7The Postal Service notes that the Commission 

may wish to consider the need for additional rules 

concerning the effect of mid-year price adjustments 

that consist entirely of a decrease on the Postal 

Service’s price adjustment authority. Id. at 7. 

8See also Postal Service Comments at 3, 4–5 

(‘‘Thus, while the Commission must apply the price 

cap structure of section 3622(d) to price 

adjustments that include increases to prices (i.e., 

either a price adjustment that consists solely of 

price increases, or a price adjustment that includes 

increases to some prices and decreases to others), 

it is not required to do so with respect to price 

adjustments consisting solely of a decrease in 

prices.’’); (‘‘While the statute clearly does not 

require that the price cap structure established by 

section 3622(d) apply to a mid-year decrease, this 

does not mean that the statute affirmatively 

forecloses the Commission from decided that the 

Postal Service’s price adjustment authority may in 

certain circumstances be altered as a result of such 

a decrease.’’). 

9The Postal Service submits that the unused 

price adjustment authority for Standard Mail 

should remain at 0.081 percent. Id. at 3 (citing PRC 

Order No. 191, Order Reviewing Postal Service 

Market Dominant Price Adjustment, May 16, 2009). 

10The Postal Service’s Notice and Response of the 

United States Postal Service to Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 1 use a ‘‘before rates’’ 

unused price adjustment authority for Standard 

Mail of 0.081 percent. See, e.g., Notice at 3. This 

before rates unused price adjustment authority is 

incorrect. The proper before rates unused price 

adjustment authority is 0.103 percent which is 

found in Order No. 201, Order Approving Revisions 

in Amended Notice of Market Dominant Price 

Adjustment at 4, April 9, 2009. 

NAA comments. NAA supports the 

Postal Service’s proposed adjustment to 

Standard Mail High Density Flats rates 

because it will encourage retained mail 

volume and discourage a migration of 

customers out of the mailstream. NAA 

Comments at 1. 

Postal Service comments. The Postal 

Service believes that applying the price 

cap to a price decrease is not required 

under the language or purpose of 

section 3622. Postal Service Comments 

at 2–3. First, it argues that section 

3622(d)(1)(A) uses the word ‘‘increase,’’ 

and that the section is supposed to 

apply only to limit the Postal Service’s 

flexibility with respect to increases. Id. 

at 3. Second, it believes that the 

legislative history of the PAEA indicates 

that Congress was concerned about 

capping the extent to which the Postal 

Service could increase prices, not 

decrease prices. Id. at 4. Third, it cites 

to Commission rule 3010.22(a) which 

generally discusses price adjustments in 

terms of ‘‘increases.’’ 7

The Postal Service notes that section 

3622(d)(1)(A) does not foreclose the 

Commission from adjusting the Postal 

Service’s authority due to mid-cycle 

price decreases. Id. 8 However, it 

submits that the Commission should not 

adjust the Postal Service’s pricing 

authority due to the unique factual 

circumstances present in this case, 

where the partial-year annual limitation 

applicable to the proposed adjustment is 

negative. Id. at 2, 5. Applying the price 

cap would require the Postal Service to 

utilize a large portion of its unused 

price adjustment authority for Standard 

Mail to effectuate the decrease. This 

would, according to the Postal Service 

‘‘create a perverse incentive for the 

Postal Service not to implement midyear price decreases in order to respond 

to market conditions, during an 

environment of declining CPI–U’’ by, in 

effect, ‘‘penaliz[ing] the Postal Service 

for making a mid-cycle price decrease in 

order to respond to market conditions, 

by requiring that the Postal Service give 

up a large portion of its unused price 

adjustment authority.’’ Id. at 2–3, see 

also Id. at 5. 

The Postal Service also suggests that 

even if a mid-year decrease during a 

period of declining CPI–U does not 

implicate the Postal Service’s price 

adjustment authority, the other 

provisions of section 3622 (such as 

sections 3622(b), (c), and (e)), still 

apply, and the Commission can make a 

determination on such issues under rule 

3010.13(j). 

With respect to the issue of waiver, 

the Postal Service states that it does not 

view a price adjustment that is outside 

the price cap structure as presenting a 

question as to whether it can ‘‘waive’’ 

price adjustment authority because, in 

such circumstances, there no authority 

is being generated that would be eligible 

to be waived. 

IV. Commission Analysis 

Impact on the price cap. The Postal 

Service considers this price adjustment 

to be outside the Commission’s current 

rules because the proposed High 

Density flat price adjustments are 

decreases and were not part of the 

regular annual price adjustment. 

Request at 3. The Postal Service states 

that it ‘‘is not claiming any new unused 

rate adjustment authority as a result of 

this price decrease.’’ Id.9 In its 

comments, the Postal Service elaborates 

on its position. It believes that 

application of the price cap to this 

situation would ‘‘requir[e] the Postal 

Service [to] give up a large portion of its 

unused price adjustment authority.’’ 

Postal Service Comments at 5. In 

support of this statement, the Postal 

Service points to its calculation in 

response to CHIR No. 1 which shows a 

reduction to the Postal Service’s unused 

rate adjustment authority as a result of 

this case.10

However, this position does not take 

into consideration the fact that any 

adjustment to the Postal Service’s 

unused rate adjustment authority as a 

result of this case would also ‘‘reset’’ the 

cap calculation. In other words, if the 

unused rate adjustment authority is 

changed as a result of this case, the cap 

calculation going forward would also be 

‘‘reset.’’ The negative change in CPI–U 

for the last five months of last year 

would have already been taken into 

account by the resetting of the cap 

calculation. Therefore, a future rate 

increase could be larger than it 

otherwise could have been if the cap 

calculation and unused rate adjustment 

authority were not reset as a result of 

this proceeding. Indeed, the change in 

unused rate adjustment authority as a 

result of this proceeding would be offset 

by the negative change in CPI-U that 

would have to be taken into account as 

a result of this proceeding. See Library 

Reference PRC–R2009–4–LR–1 for an 

example of this mathematical 

phenomenon. This balancing occurs 

whether or not the change in CPI-U is 

positive or negative. 

The Commission believes that the 

larger issue with respect to this 

proposed rate change is the impact that 

the one decimal place rounding 

constraint found in 39 CFR 3010.21 and 

3010.22 potentially could have on the 

rate adjustment authority altered as a 

result of this proceeding. If the 

Commission alters the Postal Service’s 

unused rate adjustment authority as a 

result of this proceeding, depending on 

how CPI-U changes in the upcoming 

months, proper application of 39 CFR 

3010.22 could result in a lower amount 

of Postal Service’s rate adjustment 

authority for the next regular annual 

price adjustment due to rounding. See 

Library Reference PRC-R2009–4–LR–1 

for an example of this calculation. This 

potential problem would not occur if 

the unused rate adjustment authority 

and annual limitation calculation were 

rounded to the same number of digits. 

If the Postal Service continues to 

exercise its pricing flexibility in a 

similar manner in the future (small 

increases or decreases in rates), this 

rounding problem could become more 

pernicious. 

In addition to these problems, an 

issue is whether the procedures of 39 

CFR part 3010 used for calculating rate 

adjustment authority are applicable to 

rate decreases. The Commission’s rules 

do not directly address such a situation. 

The Commission’s rules are designed for 

price adjustment proposals during 

periods of inflation. However, as noted 

above, this case has highlighted some 

problems with the application of the 

Commission’s current rules in 

unforeseen factual circumstances. 

Accordingly, the Commission will 

accept the Postal Service’s approach 

here based on the unique facts of this 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 34379 

11As the Postal Service notes, the Commission is 

currently considering whether the relationship 

between High Density and Saturation mailpieces is 

to be considered ‘‘worksharing’’ for purposes of 39 

U.S.C. 3622(e) in Docket No. RM2009–3. 

particular situation. Moreover, no 

commenters voiced opposition to the 

Postal Service’s suggested approach. 

Nonetheless, the issues raised by the 

Postal Service’s filing need to be 

addressed on a holistic basis. Therefore, 

the Commission will be initiating a 

rulemaking to solicit public comment 

on how a rate decrease should affect the 

cap calculation and unused rate 

adjustment authority in the future, as 

well as how to deal with the rounding 

issue discussed above. 

The Commission’s action in this case 

should not be construed as a finding 

that the Commission does not have 

authority under either the PAEA or its 

rules to apply the compliance cap 

calculation or adjust the Postal Service’s 

unused rate adjustment authority in 

cases where there is a rate decrease. As 

the Postal Service correctly notes, 

‘‘[w]hile the statute clearly does not 

require that the price cap structure 

established by section 3622(d) apply to 

a mid-year decrease, this does not mean 

that the statute affirmatively forecloses 

the Commission from deciding that the 

Postal Service’s price adjustment 

authority may in certain circumstances 

be altered as a result of such a 

decrease.’’ The Commission’s 

determination that the price cap should 

not apply in this case is limited to the 

narrow, unique factual situation at issue 

here. 

The rates resulting from this 

proceeding will be used as the base rates 

for the next cap calculation for the 

Standard Mail class. The unused rate 

adjustment authority for the Standard 

Mail class remains at 0.103. 

Objectives and factors. Pursuant to 

the Commission’s rules, 39 CFR 

3010.14(b)(7), the Postal Service 

addresses how this proposed rate 

adjustment helps achieve the objectives 

of 39 U.S.C. 3622(b) and takes into 

account the factors of 39 U.S.C. 3622(c). 

The Postal Service lists and discusses 

what it considers the relevant objectives 

and factors of 39 U.S.C. 3622 to the 

proposed price adjustment. Id. at 4–8. It 

believes that, at most, the price 

reductions will cause only a modest 

decrease in Postal Service revenues, and 

could potentially avoid diversion to 

non-postal delivery of large volumes of 

mail currently paying High Density flats 

prices. 

The Commission finds that, under the 

circumstances of this case, the 

objectives and factors in 39 U.S.C. 

3622(b) and (c) appear to be satisfied by 

explanations and data in the Request. 

Workshare discounts. 39 U.S.C. 

3622(e) requires that workshare 

discounts given by the Postal Service do 

not exceed their avoided costs unless 

certain criteria are fulfilled. The Postal 

Service maintains its view that the price 

differences between the High Density 

categories and the Saturation and 

Carrier Route categories are not 

workshare discounts. It recognizes that 

the Commission has instituted Docket 

No. RM2009–3 to consider that issue. In 

this case, the Postal Service provided in 

Appendix B (and an associated Excel 

file) a table showing the cost and price 

differences, as well as passthroughs for 

Carrier Route, High Density, and 

Saturation flats (both commercial and 

nonprofit) following the proposed 

adjustments to the prices of High 

Density flats. The Postal Service notes 

that none of the passthroughs exceeds 

100 percent, so the limitations of section 

3622(e) do not apply. It explains that all 

of the passthroughs for the High 

Density/Carrier Route relationship are 

slightly higher and the passthroughs for 

the High Density/Saturation 

relationship are slightly lower than 

those reported in Docket No. R2009–2 

due to the instant proposed High 

Density flats price reduction. 

The Commission finds that the rate 

changes have only a minor effect on the 

passthroughs approved just a few 

months ago and they do not cause any 

of the affected ‘‘passthroughs’’ to exceed 

100 percent, Thus, the requirements of 

section 3622(e) are satisfied here.11

Preferred rates. 39 U.S.C. 3626 

requires that nonprofit categories of 

products shall be set to yield 60 percent 

of the per-piece revenue of their 

commercial counterparts. The Postal 

Service explains that nonprofit High 

Density flats receive the same price 

reductions as commercial flats. Due to 

the fact that the proposed price changes 

apply to both commercial and nonprofit 

flats and due to the small volumes of 

High Density nonprofit flats, the Postal 

Service submits that the required 60 

percent ratio, required under 39 U.S.C. 

3626, between commercial and 

nonprofit prices is not altered as a result 

of the proposed price adjustment. 

As the current commercial/nonprofit 

price ratio is not altered as a result of 

the proposed price adjustment, the 

Commission finds that the required 60 

percent differential will be maintained. 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

A full review of the United States 

Postal Service Notice of MarketDominant Price Adjustment with 

respect to Standard Mail High Density 

flats, filed June 1, 2009, has been 

completed. With regard to the price 

adjustments contained therein, for the 

reasons set forth above 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission approves the 

Standard Mail High Density flats rate 

adjustment. 

2. The rates resulting from this 

proceeding will be used as the base rates 

for the next cap calculation for the 

Standard Mail class. 

3. The unused rate adjustment 

authority for the Standard Mail class 

remains at 0.103. 

4. The Secretary of the Commission 

will arrange for publication of this 

Order in the Federal Register. 

Issued: July 1, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–16783 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of Investor 

Education and Advocacy, 

Washington, DC 20549–0213. 

Extension: 

Rule 206(3)–2; SEC File No. 270–216; OMB 

Control No. 3235–0243. 

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 for extension 

and approval. 

Rule 206(3)–2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)–2) 

which is entitled ‘‘Agency Cross 

Transactions for Advisory Clients,’’ 

permits investment advisers to comply 

with section 206(3) of the Investment 

Advisers Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’) (15 

U.S.C. 80b–6(3)) by obtaining a client’s 

blanket consent to enter into agency 

cross transactions (i.e., a transaction in 

which an adviser acts as a broker to both 

the advisory client and the opposite 

party to the transaction), provided that 

certain disclosures are made to the 

client. Rule 206(3)–2 applies to all 

registered investment advisers. In 

relying on the rule, investment advisers 

must provide certain disclosures to their 

clients. Advisory clients can use the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES