49724 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 

1Case captions for cases such as those involving 

negotiated agreements for competitive products 

should be standardized. The first line in the caption 

should list ‘‘Competitive Product Prices’’. The 

second line should list the product and the docket 

of the case that created that product. The third line 

should list the contracting party or ‘‘Negotiated 

Service Agreement’’ if the contracting party is 

confidential information. 

2Request of United States Postal Service to Add 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts With Foreign Postal 

Administrations to the Competitive Product List, 

and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) The Enabling 

Governors’ Decision and Two Functionally 

Equivalent Contracts with Foreign Posts, August 5, 

2008 (Request). 

3The draft MCS remains under review. The 

Commission anticipates providing interested 

persons an opportunity to comment on the draft 

MCS in the near future. 

4The Commission characterizes the Governors’

Decision and associated materials filed in Docket 

No. MC2008–6 as material that supports the specific 

negotiated service agreements filed in Docket Nos. 

CP2008–14 and CP2008–15. 

5See PRC Order No. 95, August 11, 2008, at 2 

regarding the filing of certifications under seal. 

6While this Order treats these proceedings 

together due to their interrelated nature, future 

filings should be made in the docket related to the 

issues being addressed. 

which have been assigned to Docket 

Nos. MC2008–6, CP2008–14 and 

CP2008–15, announcing prices and 

classification changes for competitive 

products not of general applicability.1

The request in Docket No. MC2008–6 

informs the Commission that ‘‘the 

Governors have established prices and 

classifications not of general 

applicability for Inbound Direct Entry 

Contracts with Foreign Postal 

Administrations,’’ and attaches a 

redacted copy of the Governors’

Decision.2 See Request, Attachment 1. 

The Postal Service also attached a 

revision of the draft Mail Classification 

Schedule (MCS) (section 2612) 

concerning Inbound Direct Entry 

Contracts to the Notice.3 See Request, 

Attachment 1, Attachment A. 

In support of these dockets, the Postal 

Service filed a Statement of Supporting 

Justification of Pranab Shah. See 

Request, Attachment 2. The Postal 

Service has also filed materials under 

seal, including the unredacted 

Governors’ Decision in Docket No. 

MC2008–6. The Postal Service claims 

that ‘‘[p]rices and other contract terms 

relating to the foreign posts’ processes 

and procedures are highly confidential 

in the business world * * * [and that 

its] ability * * * to negotiate individual 

contracts would be severely 

compromised if prices * * * [for] these 

types of agreements were publicly 

disclosed.’’ Request at 2–3. 

Docket Nos. CP2008–14 and CP2008–

15 announce specific Inbound Direct 

Entry Contracts that the Postal Service 

has entered into with the individual 

Foreign Postal Administrations, namely 

China Post Group and Hong Kong Post, 

respectively.4 Id. In support of these 

dockets, the Postal Service has also filed 

materials, including the contracts and 

supporting certifications, under seal.5

The Postal Service’s filings in these 

dockets are related. Docket No. 

MC2008–6 establishes, in essence, a 

shell classification, while Docket Nos. 

CP2008–14 and CP2008–15 are specific 

agreements negotiated pursuant to the 

conditions of the shell classification. 

Given this interrelationship, the 

Commission reviews these proceedings 

together in this Order.6

In Order No. 43, the Commission 

issued regulations establishing a 

modern system of rate regulation, 

including a list of competitive products. 

Docket No. RM2007–1, Order 

Establishing Ratemaking Regulations for 

Market Dominant and Competitive 

Products, October 29, 2007, paras. 3061 

and 4013. Among other things, the 

Commission determined that each 

negotiated service agreement would 

initially be classified as a separate 

product. The Commission also 

acknowledged, however, the possibility 

of grouping substantially equivalent 

agreements as a single product if they 

exhibit similar cost and market 

characteristics. Id., paras. 2177 and 

3001. In its filings, the Postal Service 

contends that these two agreements are 

premised on similar cost and market 

characteristics and provides arguments 

to support this claim. Request at 5–6. 

Thus, the Postal Service requests that 

the Commission classify the two 

agreements filed in Docket Nos. 

CP2008–14 and CP2008–15 as part of 

the same product. 

Interested persons may express views 

and offer comments on whether the 

planned changes are consistent with the 

policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 

3642. Comments are due no later than 

August 26, 2008. 

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

Harrington is designated to serve as 

officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in the 

above-captioned dockets. 

It is Ordered: 

1. Docket Nos. MC2008–6, CP2008–

14, and CP2008–15 are established to 

consider the Postal Service Request and 

related contracts referred to in the body 

of this Order. 

2. Comments by interested persons on 

issues in these proceedings are due no 

later than August 26, 2008. 

3. The Commission designates Paul L. 

Harrington as 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. 

Issued August 13, 2008. 

Judith M. Grady, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19446 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

In the Matter of: Birman Managed Care, 

Inc. (n/k/a Alcar Chemical Group, Inc.), 

Cluster Technology Corp., 

Consolidated Growers and 

Processors, Inc., Global Network, Inc., 

Micro-Integration Corp., Monsoon 

International Manufacturing & 

Distribution, Inc., Montt International 

Corp., Pony Express U. S. A., Inc., 

SUMmedia.com, Inc., and Sunflower 

USA, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of 

Trading 

August 20, 2008 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Birman 

Managed Care, Inc. (n/k/a Alcar 

Chemical Group, Inc.) because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended March 31, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Cluster 

Technology Corp. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since March 8, 

2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

Consolidated Growers and Processors, 

Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since January 5, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Global 

Network, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended September 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of MicroIntegration Corp. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since December 31, 

1999. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 49725 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58335 

(August 8, 2008) (SR–NASDAQ–2008–053) 

(approving similar modifications to NASDAQ Rule 

4200(a)(15)(B) and IM–4200) (Release No. 34–

58335); and 58367 (August 15, 2008) (proposing 

similar modifications to Section 303A.02 of the 

NYSE Listed Company Manual). 

4See 17 CFR 229.404 and 17 CFR 228.404; see 

also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54302A 

(August 29, 2006), 71 FR 53158 (September 8, 

2006). 

5See Section 803(A)(2) of the Company Guide. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Monsoon 

International Manufacturing & 

Distribution, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended January 21, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Montt 

International Corp. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since 

February 14, 2000. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Pony 

Express U. S. A., Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended September 30, 2004. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

SUMmedia.com, Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended September 30, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Sunflower 

USA, Ltd. because it has not filed any 

periodic reports since the period ended 

February 29, 2000. 

The Commission is of the opinion that 

the public interest and the protection of 

investors require a suspension of trading 

in the securities of the above-listed 

companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to 

section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed companies 

is suspended for the period from 9:30 

a.m. EDT on August 20, 2008, through 

11:59 p.m. EDT on September 3, 2008. 

By the Commission. 

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19634 Filed 8–20–08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–58378; File No. SR–Amex–

2008–67] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change Modifying 

the Definition of ‘‘Independent 

Director’’ in the Amex Company Guide 

August 18, 2008. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that 

on August 15, 2008, the American Stock 

Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the Exchange. 

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 amend 

Section 803 of the Amex Company 

Guide (the ‘‘Company Guide’’) to 

modify the definition of ‘‘independent 

director.’’ The text of the proposed rule 

change is available on the Amex’s Web 

site at http://www.amex.com, the Office 

of the Secretary, the Amex 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 

Amex 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 Amex has 

prepared summaries, set forth in 

sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the 

most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Section 803(A)(2)(b) of the Company 

Guide generally precludes a director of 

a listed issuer from being considered 

‘‘independent’’ if the director (or an 

immediate family member of a director) 

received more than $100,000 in 

compensation from the issuer or any 

parent or subsidiary of the issuer within 

any twelve-month period in the three 

years preceding the determination of the 

director’s independence status. The 

Exchange proposes to raise this amount 

to $120,000 to conform its 

independence standard in this respect 

with a NASDAQ Stock Market LLC 

(‘‘Nasdaq’’) rule change just approved 

by the Commission and a similar 

proposal submitted and pending before 

the Commission by the New York Stock 

Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE’’).3

In addition, the proposed change will 

harmonize the Exchange’s 

independence standards with the 

existing $120,000 disclosure threshold 

applicable to related party transactions 

set by the Commission in Regulation S–

K, Item 404.4 Use of this consistent 

standard will enhance the Exchange’s 

ability to assess compliance with the 

independent director requirements 

because listed issuers are uniformly 

required under Item 404 of Regulation 

S–K to disclose compensation to 

directors in excess of $120,000, but are 

not necessarily required to disclose 

compensation between $100,000 and 

$120,000. Further, the Exchange 

believes that by making its ‘‘bright line’’

standard with respect to the maximum 

amount of compensation a director (or 

an immediate family member of a 

director) can receive from the issuer (or 

any parent or subsidiary) consistent 

with the equivalent standard of Nasdaq 

and proposed by NYSE, it will provide 

a uniform standard for issuers to 

understand and apply. However, the 

Exchange notes that even if a director 

passes the ‘‘bright line’’ standard as 

proposed to be amended, an issuer’s 

board of directors must still make an 

affirmative determination that such 

director has no relationship with the 

issuer that would interfere with the 

director’s exercise of independent 

judgment in carrying out the 

responsibilities of a director.5


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES