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
34380 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Notices 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

6The Exchange currently offers a basic form of 

match prevention by allowing a User to request a 

setting for their connections that prevents incoming 

orders from interacting with resting orders if both 

orders originate from the same MPID. The proposed 

rule expands the functionality offered to Users by 

providing additional options for match prevention. 

7Any Exchange Member that has an MPID issued 

by FINRA is identified in the Exchange’s internal 

disclosures to monitor agency cross 

transactions that affect their advisory 

account. The Commission also uses the 

information required by Rule 206(3)–2 

in connection with its investment 

adviser inspection program to ensure 

that advisers are in compliance with the 

rule. Without the information collected 

under the rule, advisory clients would 

not have information necessary for 

monitoring their adviser’s handling of 

their accounts and the Commission 

would be less efficient and effective in 

its inspection program. 

The information requirements of the 

rule consist of the following: (1) Prior to 

obtaining the client’s consent 

appropriate disclosure must be made to 

the client as to the practice of, and the 

conflicts of interest involved in, agency 

cross transactions; (2) at or before the 

completion of any such transaction the 

client must be furnished with a written 

confirmation containing specified 

information and offering to furnish 

upon request certain additional 

information; and (3) at least annually, 

the client must be furnished with a 

written statement or summary as to the 

total number of transactions during the 

period covered by the consent and the 

total amount of commissions received 

by the adviser or its affiliated brokerdealer attributable to such transactions. 

The Commission estimates that 

approximately 631 respondents use the 

rule annually, necessitating about 32 

responses per respondent each year, for 

a total of 20,192 responses. Each 

response requires an estimated 0.5 

hours, for a total of 10,096 hours. The 

estimated average burden hours are 

made solely for the purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and are not 

derived from a comprehensive or 

representative survey or study of the 

cost of Commission rules and forms. 

This collection of information is 

found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)–2) and is 

necessary in order for the investment 

adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 

206(3)–2. The collection of information 

requirements under the rule is 

mandatory. Information subject to the 

disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)– 

2 does not require submission to the 

Commission; and, accordingly, the 

disclosure pursuant to the rule is not 

kept confidential. Commissionregistered investment advisers are 

required to maintain and preserve 

certain information required under Rule 

206(3)–2 for five (5) years. The longterm retention of these records is 

necessary for the Commission’s 

inspection program to ascertain 

compliance with the Act. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. 

Written comments are invited on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Please direct your written comments 

to Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General 

Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 

send an e-mail to: 

PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must 

be submitted to OMB within 60 days of 

this notice. 

Dated: July 9, 2009. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–16712 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60266; File No. SR–BATS– 

2009–022] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS 

Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend BATS Rule 

11.9, Entitled ‘‘Orders and Modifiers’’ 

July 9, 2009. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that on July 6, 

2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BATS’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the Exchange. The Exchange has 

designated this proposal as a ‘‘noncontroversial’’ proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 4 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder,5 which renders it effective 

upon filing with the Commission. 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 Exchange proposes to make 

modifications to the existing technology 

that it provides to a User that wishes to 

avoid trading against orders from that 

same User (‘‘Member Match Trade 

Prevention’’ or ‘‘MMTP’’). The text of 

the proposed rule change is available 

from the Exchange’s Web site at 

http://www.batstrading.com, at the 

Exchange’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 

Exchange 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 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to offer 

Member Match Trade Prevention, or 

MMTP, to Exchange Users pursuant to 

proposed Rule 11.9(f).6

Background 

The proposed MMTP modifiers are 

designed to prevent two orders with the 

same Unique Identifier (as defined 

below) from executing against each 

other. The Exchange proposes adding 

four MMTP modifiers that will be 

implemented and can be set at the 

market participant identifier (‘‘MPID’’), 

the Exchange Member identifier or the 

Exchange Sponsored Participant 

identifier level (any such identifier, a 

‘‘Unique Identifier’’).7 With one 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES