11532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 

1Notice of the United States Postal Service Filing 

of a Functionally Equivalent International Business 

Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Negotiated 

Service Agreement, February 18, 2011 (Notice). 

2The Commission finds that an extension of the 

current contract is necessary to permit sufficient 

time for regulatory review of the instant contract. 

By this Order, the Commission extends the current 

agreement until March 31, 2011. 

3The Postal Service will notify the mailer of the 

effective date within 30 days of receiving all 

necessary regulatory approvals. The contract will 

remain in effect for 1 year unless terminated earlier 

by either party. Id. Attachment 1 at 4. 

4See Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011–59, 

Request of the United States Postal Service to Add 

International Business Reply Service Competitive 

Contract 3 to the Competitive Products List and 

Notice of Filing of Contract (Under Seal), February 

11, 2011. 

5The Postal Service Notice assumes the existence 

of the IBRS Competitive Contract 3 product. The 

Commission will review the instant contract in light 

of its final order in Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and 

CP2011–59. 

If a person other than Mr. Desobry, 

Ph.D., requests a hearing, that person 

shall set forth with particularity the 

manner in which his/her interest is 

adversely affected by this Order and 

shall address the criteria set forth in 10 

CFR 2.309(d). 

If a hearing is requested by a licensee 

or a person whose interest is adversely 

affected, the Commission will issue an 

Order designating the time and place of 

any hearings. If a hearing is held, the 

issue to be considered at such hearing 

shall be whether this Order should be 

sustained. In the absence of any request 

for hearing, or written approval of an 

extension of time in which to request a 

hearing, the provisions specified in 

Section IV above shall be final 20 days 

from the date this Order is published in 

the Federal Register without further 

order or proceedings. If an extension of 

time for requesting a hearing has been 

approved, the provisions specified in 

Section IV shall be final when the 

extension expires if a hearing request 

has not been received. 

Dated this 23rd day of February 2011. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4682 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CP2011–61; Order No. 680] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses a 

recent Postal Service filing concerning 

an additional International Business 

Reply Service (IBRS) Competitive 

Contract 3. It identifies preliminary 

procedural steps and invites public 

comment. It also grants an extension of 

the current contract. 

DATES: Comments are due: March 3, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Notice of Filing 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

On February 18, 2011, the Postal 

Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 

CFR 3015.5, that it has entered into an 

additional International Business Reply 

Service (IBRS) Competitive contract.1

The instant contract is the successor of 

the IBRS Competitive contract which is 

the subject of Docket No. CP2010–22, 

which is scheduled to expire on 

February 28, 2011.2 Id. at 3. The Postal 

Service requests that the instant contract 

be included within the IBRS 

Competitive Contract 3 product. Id. at 

6.3

In Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and 

CP2011–59, the Postal Service requested 

that the Commission add IBRS 

Competitive Contract 3 to the 

competitive product list, and that the 

contract filed in Docket No. CP2011–59 

serve as the baseline contract for future 

functional equivalence analyses of the 

IBRS Competitive Contract 3 product.4

Docket Nos. MC2011–21 and CP2011– 

59 remain pending before the 

Commission.5

In support of its Notice, the Postal 

Service filed the following attachments: 

• Attachment 1—a redacted copy of 

the contract; 

• Attachment 2—a redacted copy of 

the certified statement required by 39 

CFR 3015.5(c)(2); 

• Attachment 3—Governors’ Decision 

No. 08–24, which establishes prices and 

classifications for the IBRS Contracts 

product, and includes Mail 

Classification Schedule language for 

IBRS contracts, formulas for pricing 

along with an analysis, certification of 

the Governors vote, and certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a); and 

• Attachment 4—an application for 

non-public treatment of materials to 

maintain the redacted portions of the 

contract, customer identifying 

information and related financial 

information under seal. 

Functional equivalence. The Postal 

Service asserts that the instant contract 

is functionally equivalent to the IBRS 

contracts previously filed. Notice at 4. It 

also asserts that the ‘‘functional terms’’ 

of the instant contract and the 

‘‘functional terms’’ of the proposed 

baseline IBRS 3 Competitive Contract 

‘‘are the same, although other terms that 

do not directly change the nature of the 

agreements’ basic obligations may vary.’’ 

Id. To that end, the Postal Service 

indicates that prices under IBRS 

contracts may differ based on volume or 

postage commitments and when the 

agreement is signed. It identifies certain 

customer-specific information that 

distinguishes the instant contract from 

the proposed baseline agreement. Id. at 

5. 

The Postal Service concludes that the 

instant contract complies with 39 U.S.C. 

3633 and is functionally equivalent to 

the proposed IBRS Competitive Contract 

3 baseline agreement in Docket Nos. 

MC2011–21 and CP2011–59. Id. at 6. It 

submits that the instant contract ‘‘should 

be added to the proposed IBRS 3 

product grouping.’’ Id. at 4. 

II. Notice of Filing 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2011–61 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Postal Service’s 

Notice. 

The Commission appoints William C. 

Miller to serve as Public Representative 

in this docket. 

Comments. Interested persons may 

submit comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s filings in the captioned docket 

are consistent with the policies of 39 

U.S.C. 3632, 3633 or 39 CFR part 3015. 

Comments are due no later than March 

3, 2011. The public portions of this 

filing can be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov). 

III. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. CP2011–61 for consideration of the 

matters raised in this docket. 

2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, William 

C. Miller is appointed to serve as officer 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2011 / Notices 11533 

1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60147 

(June 19, 2009), 74 FR 30651 (June 26, 2009). 

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60584 

(August 28, 2009), 74 FR 45663 (September 3, 

2009). 

3 17 CFR § 201.431(e). 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60988 

and 60989. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61722. 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62523 

(July 16, 2010), 75 FR 43211 (July 23, 2010). 

7See letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and 

General Counsel, ISE, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated July 14, 2010. 

8 17 CFR 201.431(a). 

9The Commission has this day issued a separate 

order approving SR–ISE–2010–73. 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62523 

(July 16, 2010), 75 FR 43211 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4See Letters from Anthony J. Saliba, Chief 

Executive Officer, LiquidPoint, LLC, to Elizabeth M. 

Murphy, Secretary, Commission dated, July 30, 

2010 (‘‘LiquidPoint Letter 2’’); William J. Brodsky, 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chicago 

Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’), to 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated 

August 9, 2010 (‘‘CBOE Letter 1’’); Ben Londergan 

and John Gilmartin, Co-Chief Executive Officers, 

Group One Trading, LP, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated August 9, 2010 

(‘‘Group One Letter 2’’); Janet M. Kissane, Senior 

Vice President—Legal and Corporate Secretary, 

NYSE Euronext, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Commission, dated August 9, 2010 (‘‘NYSE Letter 

2’’); Thomas Wittman, President, NASDAQ OMX 

PHLX, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’), to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated August 13, 2010 

(‘‘Phlx Letter 2’’); J. Micah Glick, Chief Compliance 

Officer, Cutler Group LP to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated September 3, 2010 

(‘‘Cutler Letter’’); Janet L. McGinness, Senior Vice 

President—Legal and Corporate Secretary, NYSE 

Euronext, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Commission, dated October 21, 2010 (‘‘NYSE Letter 

3’’); and Gerald D. O’Connell, Chief Compliance 

Officer, Susquehanna International Group, LLP, to 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated 

October 22, 2010 (‘‘Susquehanna Letter 2’’). 

5See Letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and 

General Counsel, ISE, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated, August 25, 2010 

(‘‘ISE Response’’). 

of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

3. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

March 3, 2011. 

4. The current contract filed in Docket 

No. CP2010–22 for International 

Business Reply Service Competitive 

Contract 2 is authorized to continue in 

effect through March 31, 2011. 

5. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Shoshana M. Grove, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4684 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 63954; File No. SR–ISE–2009– 

35] 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the 

Matter of Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated, 400 South 

LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60605; 

Order Setting Aside the Order by 

Delegated Authority Approving SR– 

ISE–2009–35 and Dismissing CBOE’s 

Petition for Review 

February 24, 2011. 

On June 15, 2009, the International 

Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’) filed a 

proposed rule change with the 

Commission seeking to establish a 

Qualified Contingent Cross (‘‘QCC’’) 

Order. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment on June 26, 

2009.1 On August 28, 2009, the 

Commission approved, by authority 

delegated to the Division of Trading and 

Markets, the proposed rule change 

(‘‘Approval Order’’).2 On September 4, 

2009, the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange (‘‘CBOE’’) filed a notice of 

intention to file a petition for review of 

the Approval Order and, on September 

14, 2009, CBOE filed a petition for 

review with the Commission (‘‘Petition 

for Review’’). Under the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice, the filing of CBOE’s 

Petition for Review automatically stayed 

the Approval Order.3 On September 11, 

2009, ISE filed a motion to lift the 

automatic stay. On November 12, 2009, 

the Commission granted CBOE’s 

Petition for Review and denied a motion 

filed by ISE to lift the automatic stay.4

On March 17, 2010, the Commission 

approved the placement in the public 

file of a memorandum by its Division of 

Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation 

(‘‘RiskFin’’) analyzing certain data 

relating to ISE’s proposed rule change 

(‘‘RiskFin Memo’’). At the same time that 

the Commission approved placement of 

the RiskFin Memo in the public file, the 

Commission also issued an order 

extending the time to file statements in 

support of or in opposition to the 

Approval Order to give the public an 

opportunity to review the data and 

analysis in the RiskFin Memo.5

On July 14, 2010, ISE filed a new 

proposed rule change to modify the 

requirements for QCC Orders (file 

number SR–ISE–2010–73). The 

Commission published for public 

comment the modified proposal.6 Also 

on July 14, 2010, ISE submitted a letter 

requesting that the Commission vacate 

the Approval Order concurrently with 

the approval of the new proposed rule, 

SR–ISE–2010–73.7

We have determined to construe ISE’s 

request as a petition to vacate the 

Approval Order pursuant to 

Commission Rule of Practice 431(a), 

which permits us to ‘‘affirm, reverse, 

modify, set aside or remand for further 

proceedings, in whole or in part, any 

action made pursuant to’’ delegated 

authority.8 We find that, in light of the 

filing of ISE’s modified proposal 

regarding the QCC Orders,9 it is 

appropriate to grant ISE’s request and 

set aside the Approval Order. We also 

find that, given this disposition of the 

Approval Order, CBOE’s petition for 

review of that order has become moot. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that the 

August 28, 2009 order approving by 

delegated authority ISE’s proposed rule 

change number SR–ISE–2009–35, be, 

and it hereby is, set aside; and 

It is further ordered that the petition 

for review, filed by the Chicago Board 

Options Exchange on September 14, 

2009, of the August 28, 2009 order 

approving by delegated authority ISE’s 

proposed rule change number SR–ISE– 

2009–35 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4575 Filed 3–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63955; File No. SR–ISE– 

2010–73] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

International Securities Exchange, 

LLC; Order Granting Approval of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Modify 

Qualified Contingent Cross Order 

Rules 

February 24, 2011. 

I. Introduction 

On July 14, 2010, the International 

Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

modify rules for Qualified Contingent 

Cross (‘‘QCC’’) Orders. The proposed 

rule change was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on July 23, 

2010.3 The Commission received eight 

comment letters on the proposed rule 

change 4 and a response letter from ISE.5


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES