Global Express Package Service Contracts, 50374-50375 [E8-19679]

Download as PDF 50374 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. * * * * * Dated: August 21, 2008. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–19828 Filed 8–22–08; 11:15 am] By a vote of 4– 0 on August 20 and 21, 2008, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules that Affirmation of ‘‘Concerning Petitions to Intervene related to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Application for Order Approving Indirect Transfer of Control of Licenses (filed July 30, 2007)’’ be held August 22, 2008, and on less than one week’s notice to the public. Affirmation of ‘‘U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository)— Petitions of the State of Nevada and Dr. Jacob Paz to Reject the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Application to Construct a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Tentative)’’ was announced on July 15, 2008, to be held on July 23, 2008 and subsequently was postponed. On August 12, 2008, the Affirmation was rescheduled and announced to be held on August 13, 2008. This Affirmation was postponed again and has been rescheduled on Friday, August 22, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at REB3@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 00:53 Aug 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 BILLING CODE 7590–01–P [Docket Nos. CP2008–18, CP2008–19, CP2008–20, CP2008–21, CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24; Order No. 100] Global Express Package Service Contracts Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing seven recently-filed Postal Service Global Express Package Service negotiated service agreements. This action is consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal operations. DATES: Comments due September 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202–789–6820 or stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On August 14, 2008, the Postal Service filed seven identical notices, which have been assigned to Docket Nos. CP2008–18 through CP2008–24.1 These notices announce individual negotiated service agreements, namely, specific Global Express Package Service (GEPS) contracts the Postal Service has entered into with individual mailers. The Postal Service believes that each is functionally equivalent to the Global Express Package Services 1 (GEPS 1) product established in Docket No. CP2008–5. Docket No. CP2008–5. The Governor’s Decision supporting the GEPS 1 product was filed in consolidated Docket No. CP2008–5.2 In Order No. 86, the Commission established GEPS 1 as a product and held that additional contracts may be included as part of the GEPS 1 product if they meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633, and if they are substantially equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed in Docket 1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing of Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, August 14, 2008, filed in Docket Nos. CP2008–18, CP2008–19, CP2008–20, CP2008–21, CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24 (Notices). 2 Docket No. CP2008–5, United States Postal Service Notice of Filing Redacted Copy of Governors’ Decision No. 08–7, July 23, 2008. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 No. CP2008–5.3 The GEPS 1 product provides volume-based incentives for mailers that send large volumes of Express Mail International (EMI) and/or Priority Mail International (PMI). Related contracts. The Postal Service contemporaneously filed the seven contracts in this docket pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5 and Order No. 86,4 asserting that they are substantially equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed with the Commission. In support of each of these dockets, the Postal Service also filed the contract and supporting material under seal. The Notices contain the Postal Service’s arguments that these contracts are substantially equivalent and that they exhibit similar cost and market characteristics. Notices at 3–5. The Postal Service also maintains that all seven contracts, by virtue of their terms, fit within the proposed MCS language for GEPS 1. Id. at 2. While maintaining that the contracts are substantially equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed, the Postal Service notes that the contracts may differ in minor respects, for example, prices may vary due to volume commitments, signing dates of the agreements, existence of previous agreements, and other case specific and negotiation related factors. Id. at 4–5. The Postal Service maintains, however, that ‘‘[i]ncidental differences to accommodate the respective mailers do nothing to detract from the conclusion that these agreements are ‘functionally equivalent in all pertinent respects.’ ’’ Id. at 5. The Postal Service asks that the seven contracts be added to the existing GEPS 1 product. Id. at 2 and 5. It further notes that the contracts are ‘‘set to expire one year after the Postal Service notifies the customer that all necessary approvals and reviews of the agreement have been obtained, culminating with a favorable conclusion on review by the Commission.’’ Id. at 2. II. Notice of Filings The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2008–18, CP2008–19, CP2008– 20, CP2008–21, CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24. In keeping with recent practice, these dockets are addressed on a consolidated basis for purposes of this Order; however, future filings should be made in the specific docket in which 3 Docket No. CP2008–5, Order Concerning Global Expedited Package Services Contracts, June 27, 2008 (Order No. 86) at 7 (‘‘The Commission will verify whether or not any subsequent contract is in fact substantially equivalent. Contracts not having substantially the same terms and conditions as the GEPS 1 contract must be filed under 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B.’’). 4 Id. C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices issues being addressed pertain. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission’s Web site(https://www.prc.gov). 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 September 2, 2008. The Commission appoints Michael Ravnitzky to serve as Public Representative in the captioned filings. III. Ordering Paragraphs It is Ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2008–18, CP2008–19, CP2008– 20, CP2008–21, CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24 for consideration of the matters raised in each docket. 2. Comments on issues in these proceedings are due no later than September 2, 2008. 3. The Commission appoints Michael Ravnitzky as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. 4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3633; 39 CFR 3020.33. By the Commission. Dated: August 20, 2008. Judith M. Grady, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8–19679 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–58385; File No. 4–443] Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Order Approving on a Temporary Basis Amendment No. 2 to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES August 19, 2008. I. Introduction On August 12, 2008, August 18, 2008, August 15, 2008, August 13, 2008, August 8, 2008, August 14, 2008, August 14, 2008, and August 18, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BSE’’), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’), NYSE Arca Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’), the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’), and the VerDate Aug<31>2005 00:53 Aug 26, 2008 Jkt 214001 Options Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’), respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act 1 of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 608 thereunder,2 Amendment No. 2 to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (‘‘the Options Listing Procedures Plan’’ or ‘‘OLPP’’).3 The amendment would provide a uniform minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for the introduction of a new expiration year of Long-term Equity AnticiPation Securities (‘‘LEAPS’’ or ‘‘LEAP’’) options. This order summarily puts into effect Amendment No. 2 on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days and solicits comment on Amendment No. 2 from interested persons.4 II. Description of the Proposed Amendment Amendment No. 2 proposes to apply a uniform minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for the introduction of a new expiration year of LEAP options. Currently, Participant Exchanges may list a new LEAP expiration year at the appropriate time without any consideration as to the activity level of the class of options. By agreeing to a minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for an additional year of LEAP series, the Participant Exchanges intend to mitigate the number of option series available for trading. It is intended that this will in turn mitigate quote traffic, because Participants will not be submitting quotes in the not-listed series. The Plan Sponsors have agreed on a minimum volume threshold of 1,000 contracts national average daily volume in the preceding three calendar 1 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. CFR 242.608. 3 On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was originally proposed by the Amex, CBOE, ISE, OCC, Phlx, and Pacific Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a NYSE Arca). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). On February 5, 2004, BSE was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49199, 69 FR 7030 (February 12, 2004). On March 21, 2008, Nasdaq was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16393 (March 27, 2008). 4 A proposed amendment may be put into effect summarily upon publication of notice of such amendment, on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days, if the Commission finds that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. See 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). 2 17 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 50375 months (excluding volume in LEAP and FLEX series) to qualify for the introduction of a new LEAP expiration year. In 2007, if this proposal had been in effect, the industry would have not added a new expiration year in 550 underlying securities, which would have reduced the overall number of listed series (LEAP and non-LEAP series) by 8%. These LEAP series generated only .43% of industry trading volume in a typical (non-expiration) sample week. The Exchanges agree that the benefit from reduced quoting levels greatly exceeds the small cost in missed business. The Amendment does not restrict the introduction of a new LEAP expiration year in Index options, or in classes that have had options products trading at any exchange for less than six months. It also does not restrict, for a particular options class, the introduction of new LEAP series with an expiration year that has already been introduced by at least one Exchange. The Commission directed the thencurrent options exchanges to act jointly to develop strategies to address overall capacity concerns in an Order dated September 8, 1999, as confirmed in a letter from the Director of the Division of Market Regulation dated September 13, 2000. This Amendment is an additional strategy to meet this goal. III. Discussion After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment to the OLPP is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.5 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of Section 11A of the Act 6 and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder,7 in that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Commission believes that adopting a uniform minimum volume threshold per underlying class to qualify for the introduction of a new expiration year of LEAP options will reduce the number of option series available for trading, and thus may reduce increases in the options quote rate because market participants will not be submitting quotes in those series. In addition, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to put Amendment No. 5 In approving this amendment, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78k–1. 7 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1

Agencies

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50374-50375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19679]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. CP2008-18, CP2008-19, CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, 
CP2008-23, and CP2008-24; Order No. 100]


Global Express Package Service Contracts

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing seven recently-filed Postal Service 
Global Express Package Service negotiated service agreements. This 
action is consistent with changes in a recent law governing postal 
operations.

DATES: Comments due September 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
202-789-6820 or stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On August 14, 2008, the Postal Service filed seven identical 
notices, which have been assigned to Docket Nos. CP2008-18 through 
CP2008-24.\1\ These notices announce individual negotiated service 
agreements, namely, specific Global Express Package Service (GEPS) 
contracts the Postal Service has entered into with individual mailers. 
The Postal Service believes that each is functionally equivalent to the 
Global Express Package Services 1 (GEPS 1) product established in 
Docket No. CP2008-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing of 
Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 1 
Negotiated Service Agreement, August 14, 2008, filed in Docket Nos. 
CP2008-18, CP2008-19, CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, CP2008-23, 
and CP2008-24 (Notices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Docket No. CP2008-5. The Governor's Decision supporting the GEPS 1 
product was filed in consolidated Docket No. CP2008-5.\2\ In Order No. 
86, the Commission established GEPS 1 as a product and held that 
additional contracts may be included as part of the GEPS 1 product if 
they meet the requirements of 39 U.S.C. 3633, and if they are 
substantially equivalent to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed in Docket 
No. CP2008-5.\3\ The GEPS 1 product provides volume-based incentives 
for mailers that send large volumes of Express Mail International (EMI) 
and/or Priority Mail International (PMI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket No. CP2008-5, United States Postal Service Notice of 
Filing Redacted Copy of Governors' Decision No. 08-7, July 23, 2008.
    \3\ Docket No. CP2008-5, Order Concerning Global Expedited 
Package Services Contracts, June 27, 2008 (Order No. 86) at 7 (``The 
Commission will verify whether or not any subsequent contract is in 
fact substantially equivalent. Contracts not having substantially 
the same terms and conditions as the GEPS 1 contract must be filed 
under 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Related contracts. The Postal Service contemporaneously filed the 
seven contracts in this docket pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5 and Order No. 
86,\4\ asserting that they are substantially equivalent to the initial 
GEPS 1 contract filed with the Commission. In support of each of these 
dockets, the Postal Service also filed the contract and supporting 
material under seal. The Notices contain the Postal Service's arguments 
that these contracts are substantially equivalent and that they exhibit 
similar cost and market characteristics. Notices at 3-5. The Postal 
Service also maintains that all seven contracts, by virtue of their 
terms, fit within the proposed MCS language for GEPS 1. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While maintaining that the contracts are substantially equivalent 
to the initial GEPS 1 contract filed, the Postal Service notes that the 
contracts may differ in minor respects, for example, prices may vary 
due to volume commitments, signing dates of the agreements, existence 
of previous agreements, and other case specific and negotiation related 
factors. Id. at 4-5. The Postal Service maintains, however, that 
``[i]ncidental differences to accommodate the respective mailers do 
nothing to detract from the conclusion that these agreements are 
`functionally equivalent in all pertinent respects.' '' Id. at 5.
    The Postal Service asks that the seven contracts be added to the 
existing GEPS 1 product. Id. at 2 and 5. It further notes that the 
contracts are ``set to expire one year after the Postal Service 
notifies the customer that all necessary approvals and reviews of the 
agreement have been obtained, culminating with a favorable conclusion 
on review by the Commission.'' Id. at 2.

II. Notice of Filings

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2008-18, CP2008-19, 
CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, CP2008-23, and CP2008-24. In keeping 
with recent practice, these dockets are addressed on a consolidated 
basis for purposes of this Order; however, future filings should be 
made in the specific docket in which

[[Page 50375]]

issues being addressed pertain. The public portions of these filings 
can be accessed via the Commission's Web site(https://www.prc.gov).
    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 September 2, 2008.
    The Commission appoints Michael Ravnitzky to serve as Public 
Representative in the captioned filings.

III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is Ordered:
    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2008-18, CP2008-19, 
CP2008-20, CP2008-21, CP2008-22, CP2008-23, and CP2008-24 for 
consideration of the matters raised in each docket.
    2. Comments on issues in these proceedings are due no later than 
September 2, 2008.
    3. The Commission appoints Michael Ravnitzky as Public 
Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this 
proceeding.
    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the 
Federal Register.

    Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3633; 39 CFR 3020.33.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 20, 2008.
Judith M. Grady,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19679 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.