Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 14699 

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

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Raleigh 

Film and Television Studios, LLC, Los 

Angeles, California. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day 

of March 2011. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6186 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

BOARD 

Membership of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s Performance 

Review Board 

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

members of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board’s Performance Review 

Board. 

DATES: March 17, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marion Hines, 202–254–4413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Merit 

Systems Protection Board is publishing 

the names of the new and current 

members of the Performance Review 

Board (PRB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 

4314(c)(4). William D. Spencer, 

currently a member of the PRB, will 

serve as Chairman of the PRB. James M. 

Eisenmann will serve as a new member 

of the PRB, and William L. Boulden will 

continue to serve as a member of the 

PRB. Gail T. Lovelace of the General 

Services Administration will continue 

to serve as an advisory member of the 

PRB. 

Dated: March 14, 2011. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6239 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT 

CORPORATION 

Regular Board of Directors Meeting; 

Sunshine Act 

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Tuesday, March 

22, 2011. 

PLACE: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, 

Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005. 

STATUS: Open. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 

Secretary, (202) 220–2376; 

ehall@nw.org. 

AGENDA: 

I. CALL TO ORDER 

II. Approval of the Minutes 

III. Approval of the Minutes 

IV. Summary Report of the Audit 

Committee 

V. Summary Report of the Finance, 

Budget and Program Committee 

VI. Summary Report of the Corporate 

Administration Committee 

VII. Financial Report & Budget 

VIII. National Foreclosure Mitigation 

Counseling (NFMC) 

IX. Management Report 

X. Strategic Plan 

XI. Adjournment 

Erica Hall, 

Assistant Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6345 Filed 3–15–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7570–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026; NRC– 

2008–0252] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company; 

Notice of Availability of Application for 

a Combined License 

On March 28, 2008, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company (SNC), acting on 

behalf of itself and Georgia Power 

Company, Oglethorpe Power 

Corporation (an Electric Membership 

Corporation), Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia, and the City of 

Dalton, Georgia, an incorporated 

municipality in the State of Georgia 

acting by and through its Board of 

Water, Light and Sinking Fund 

Commissioners (Dalton Utilities), herein 

referred to as the applicant, filed with 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) 

pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic 

Energy Act and Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, 

‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 

for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ an 

application for combined licenses 

(COLs) for two AP1000 advanced 

passive pressurized water reactors at the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) 

site located in Burke County, Georgia. 

The reactors are to be identified as 

VEGP Units 3 and 4. The application is 

currently under review by the NRC staff. 

An applicant may seek a COL in 

accordance with Subpart C of 10 CFR 

Part 52. The information submitted by 

the applicant includes certain 

administrative information, such as 

financial qualifications submitted 

pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77, as well as 

technical information submitted 

pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79. This notice 

is being provided in accordance with 

the requirements found in 10 CFR 

50.43(a)(3). 

A copy of the application is available 

for public inspection at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland, and via the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. The accession 

number for the application cover letter 

is ML081050133. Other publicly 

available documents related to the 

application, including revisions filed 

after the initial submission, are also 

posted in ADAMS. Persons who do not 

have access to ADAMS, or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, should 

contact the NRC Public Document Room 

staff by telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. The application is also 

available at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reactors/new-reactors/col.html. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of March 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ravindra Joshi, 

Senior Project Manager, AP10000 Projects 

Branch 1, Division of New Reactor Licensing, 

Office of New Reactor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6219 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–64071; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2010–074] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing of Amendment No. 3 to a 

Proposed Rule Change and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval to the 

Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, To Adopt 

Rule 4753(c) as a Six-Month Pilot in 

100 NASDAQ-Listed Securities 

March 11, 2011. 

I. Introduction 

On June 18, 2010, The NASDAQ 

Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or the 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 

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

of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
14700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62468 

(July 7, 2010), 75 FR 41258. 

4See Letter from Joe Ratterman, Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer, BATS Global Markets, Inc., 

to Hon. Mary Schapiro, Chairman, Commission, 

dated July 1, 2010 (‘‘BATS Letter’’); Letter from Jose 

Marques, Managing Director, Deutsche Bank 

Securities Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Commission, dated July 21, 2010 (‘‘Deutsche Bank 

Letter’’); Letter from Janet M. Kissane, Senior Vice 

President, Legal and Corporate Secretary, NYSE 

Euronext, to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, 

Commission, dated August 3, 2010 (‘‘NYSE Letter’’); 

Letter from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and 

Financial Markets Association, to Elizabeth M. 

Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated June 25, 

2010 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’). 

5See Letter from T. Sean Bennett, Assistant 

General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission (‘‘Nasdaq response’’). 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62740 

(August 18, 2010), 75 FR 52049 (August 24, 2010). 

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63098 

(October 13, 2010), 75 FR 64384 (October 19, 2010). 

8See Letter from Timothy Quast, Managing 

Director, Modern IR LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Commission, dated November 11, 2010 

(‘‘Modern IR Letter’’). 

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63685, 

76 FR 2732 (January 14, 2011). 

10See Amendment No. 3 dated March 10, 2011 

(‘‘Amendment No. 3’’). Amendment No. 3 replaces 

and supersedes Amendment No. 2. Amendment 

No. 3 extended the proposed start date of the pilot 

program from August 1, 2010 to a pilot period 

ending six months after the date of Commission 

approval of SR–NASDAQ–2010–074. The Exchange 

proposed to implement the rule change on a date 

to be announced to the public through a widely 

disseminated alert. 

11The Nasdaq Halt Cross is ‘‘the process for 

determining the price at which Eligible Interest 

shall be executed at the open of trading for a halted 

security and for executing that Eligible Interest.’’ 

See Nasdaq Rule 4753(a)(3). 

12See NYSE Rule 1000(a)(iv). 

13See BATS Letter; Deutsche Bank Letter; SIFMA 

Letter; Modern IR Letter. 

14See NYSE Letter. 

15See Nasdaq response, supra note 5. 

16See BATS Letter at 2; Deutsche Bank Letter at 

4; SIFMA Letter at 3. 

17See Deutsche Bank Letter at 4. 

18See Modern IR Letter at 1–2. 

19See NYSE Letter at 2. In its comment letter, 

NYSE also addressed what it perceived as Nasdaq’s 

inaccurate description of the LRPs. NYSE provided 

additional detail about the LRPs, the role of the 

LRPs during the events of May 6, 2010, and the 

interaction between LRPs and the single-stock 

circuit breaker pilot program. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. at 3–4. 

22See Nasdaq response, supra note 5, at 2. 

23 Id. 

24 Id. 

25 Id. at 3. 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

implement, on a six-month pilot basis, 

a volatility-based trading pause in 100 

Nasdaq-listed securities (‘‘Volatility 

Guard’’). On June 25, 2010, Nasdaq filed 

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule 

change. The proposed rule change, as 

modified by Amendment No. 1, was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on July 15, 2010.3 The 

Commission received four comment 

letters on the proposal.4 Nasdaq 

responded to these comments on August 

12, 2010.5 The Commission 

subsequently extended the time period 

in which to either approve the proposed 

rule change, or to institute proceedings 

to determine whether to disapprove the 

proposed rule change, to October 13, 

2010.6 On October 13, 2010, the 

Commission instituted proceedings to 

determine whether to disapprove the 

proposed rule change.7 The Commission 

thereafter received a fifth comment 

letter on the proposed rule change.8 On 

January 10, 2011, the Commission 

extended the time period within which 

to either approve or disapprove the 

proposed rule change to March 11, 

2011.9 On March 10, 2011, the Exchange 

filed Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the 

proposed rule change.10 The 

Commission is publishing this notice 

and order to solicit comments on 

Amendment No. 3 and to approve the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, on an 

accelerated basis. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

Nasdaq proposed to adopt, on a pilot 

basis, a volatility-based trading halt for 

100 Nasdaq-listed securities. Under this 

proposal, Nasdaq would suspend 

trading in a security if a trade in that 

security is executed at a price that 

exceeds a certain threshold, as 

measured over the preceding 30 

seconds. The triggering threshold varies 

according to the price of the security, 

i.e., 15% for securities with an 

execution price of $1.75 and under; 

10% for securities over $1.75 and up to 

$25; 5% for securities over $25 and up 

to $50; and 3% for securities over $50. 

If the Volatility Guard were triggered, 

Nasdaq would suspend trading in that 

security for a period of 60 seconds, but 

would maintain all current quotes and 

orders during that time, and would 

continue to accept quotes and orders. 

Following this 60-second period, 

Nasdaq would re-open the market using 

its Halt Cross mechanism.11 According 

to Nasdaq, the proposed Volatility 

Guard is similar in purpose to the 

Liquidity Replenishment Points 

(‘‘LRPs’’) rules that currently exist on the 

New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’).12

III. Comment Letters 

The Commission received four 

comment letters opposing the proposed 

rule change 13 and one comment letter 

in favor of the proposed rule change.14

Nasdaq responded to the comments 

regarding its proposal.15

Three of the four commenters 

opposing the proposal expressed 

concerns about its effect upon market 

volatility. These commenters stated that 

the Volatility Guard could actually 

increase volatility marketwide by redirecting trading in a security to other 

potentially less liquid venues once 

trading in that security had been halted 

on Nasdaq.16 One commenter 

specifically argued that this proposal, 

coupled with the LRPs currently in 

effect on the NYSE, would result in 

disparate market approaches towards 

dampening volatility that may create 

confusion among market participants, 

particularly in times of market stress, 

and exacerbate market volatility.17

Another commenter argued that the 

Volatility Guard would inappropriately 

impede the market’s price-setting 

mechanism, to the detriment of issuers 

and investors.18

One commenter, however, supported 

Nasdaq’s ‘‘right to design the controls it 

believes are best for trading on its 

market.’’ 19 This commenter stated that 

the national market system was 

designed to encourage competitive 

distinctions such as Nasdaq’s Volatility 

Guard and NYSE’s LRPs.20 According to 

this commenter, both the Nasdaq 

proposal and the NYSE LRPs ‘‘provide 

certainty and predictability of 

operation,’’ and permit those markets to 

pursue strategies where the quality of 

price need not always defer to speed of 

execution.21

In its response, Nasdaq rejected the 

argument that the proposed Volatility 

Guard would exacerbate market 

volatility.22 Nasdaq stated that it 

specifically designed the proposed 

Volatility Guard to work within the 

parameters of the single-stock circuit 

breaker pilot program currently in effect 

across all markets, and to avoid the 

potential for conflicting standards 

between the two mechanisms.23 Nasdaq 

also asserted that there is no evidence 

that the proposed Volatility Guard 

would increase volatility in a particular 

security; rather, Nasdaq stated that the 

Volatility Guard would actually keep 

aberrant volatility on Nasdaq from 

spreading to other markets.24

Nasdaq also argued that the proposed 

Volatility Guard differed significantly 

from the NYSE LRPs, and that 

criticizing the Volatility Guard by 

comparing it to the LRPs was 

misleading. Nasdaq stated that the 

Volatility Guard, unlike the LRPs, 

would be based on clear and predictable 

criteria that would trigger a pause only 

in the event of a significant imbalance.25

Accordingly, Nasdaq did not believe it 

appropriate to make a generic assertion 

that all market-based single-stock 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 14701 

26 Id. 

27 Id. 

28 In approving this amendment, the Commission 

has considered the proposed amendment’s impact 

of efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

29 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

30See notes 16–17 supra and accompanying text. 

31See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC 

to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging 

Regulatory Issues, ‘‘Findings Regarding the Market 

Events of May 6, 2010’’, dated September 30, 2010. 

32 Id. at 70. The May 6 Staff Report did note, 

however, that the increasing number of LRPs being 

triggered on NYSE underscored the severity of 

market conditions as they were unfolding, and that 

this additional ‘‘evidence’’ played into market 

participants’ decisions to reduce liquidity, pause 

trading, or withdraw from the markets. Id. at 70– 

71. 

33See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

62251, 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010); 62252, 75 FR 

34186 (June 16, 2010). 

34See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

62883, 75 FR 56608 (September 16, 2010); 62884, 

75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010). The circuit 

breaker pilot currently is scheduled to end on April 

11, 2011. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release 

Nos. 63497 (December 9, 2010), 75 FR 56618 

(December 15, 2010); 63503 (December 9, 2010), 75 

FR 78316 (December 15, 2010). 35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

trading pauses are detrimental to the 

overall market.26

Finally, Nasdaq stated that it was 

proposing to employ prudent 

precautions in implementing the 

Volatility Guard. In particular, Nasdaq 

would implement the Volatility Guard 

as a pilot, limited in time and scope, 

during which time the Volatility Guard 

could be adjusted as needed. Nasdaq 

would also provide data to the 

Commission during the pilot period 

about the efficiency and effect of the 

Volatility Guard.27

IV. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

After carefully considering the 

proposal and the comments submitted, 

the Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change, as modified by Amendment 

Nos. 1 and 3, is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder.28

Specifically, the Commission finds that 

the proposed rule change is consistent 

with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,29 which 

requires that the rules of an exchange be 

designed, among other things, to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, to remove 

impediments to and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

Nasdaq’s proposal is presented by the 

Exchange as an effort to protect Nasdaqlisted securities and Nasdaq market 

participants from aberrant volatility, 

such as that witnessed on May 6, 2010. 

According to Nasdaq, the Volatility 

Guard is similar in purpose to the LRP 

rules that currently exist on the NYSE. 

A few commenters argued that 

individual exchange-specific 

mechanisms to moderate volatility may 

in fact exacerbate the volatility of the 

market overall, create confusion, and 

complicate the operation of the marketwide single stock circuit breakers.30

However, the commenters opposing the 

proposal did not provide data or other 

evidence to support their contention. In 

addition, the Commission notes that the 

presence of another exchange-specific 

volatility moderator, the NYSE LRPs, 

was not found by the Report of the 

Staffs of the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission and the 

Commission (the ‘‘May 6 Staff 

Report’’) 31 to have caused or created the 

broad-based liquidity crisis on that 

day.32

Since the events of May 6, 2010, the 

Commission has been working with the 

exchanges and FINRA on a consistent 

mechanism, applicable throughout the 

U.S. markets, to moderate excessive 

volatility in individual securities. On 

June 10, 2010, the Commission 

approved, on a pilot basis, circuit 

breaker rules that pause trading for five 

minutes in a security in the S&P 500 

Index if its price moves ten percent or 

more over a five-minute period.33 On 

September 10, 2010, the circuit breaker 

pilot was expanded to include securities 

in the Russell 1000 Index and certain 

exchange-traded products.34 The 

Commission continues to work with the 

exchanges and FINRA to assess the 

operation of the circuit breaker pilot and 

its possible expansion, as well as the 

prospect of supplementing the circuit 

breakers with ‘‘limit up/limit down’’ 

style trading parameters. 

In light of the fact that the circuit 

breaker mechanism in effect today 

applies only to certain securities, and 

that its operation currently is being 

evaluated under the pilot, and in 

recognition of the current existence of 

NYSE’s LRPs, the Commission believes 

there is continued room for 

experimentation with certain exchangespecific volatility moderators. 

Accordingly, the Commission today 

finds that Nasdaq’s proposal to 

implement the Volatility Guard for a 

six-month pilot program in 100 Nasdaqlisted securities is consistent with the 

Act. 

The Commission emphasizes, 

however, that it is continuing to work 

diligently with the exchanges and 

FINRA to develop an appropriate 

consistent cross-market mechanism to 

moderate excessive volatility that could 

be applied widely to individual 

exchange-listed securities and to 

address commenters’ concerns regarding 

the complexity and potential confusion 

of exchange-specific volatility 

moderators. To the extent the 

Commission approves such a 

mechanism, whether it be an expanded 

circuit breaker with a limit up/limit 

down feature or otherwise, the 

Commission may no longer be able to 

find that exchange-specific volatility 

moderators—including both Nasdaq’s 

Volatility Guard and the NYSE’s LRPs— 

are consistent with the Act. 

V. Accelerated Approval 

The Commission finds good cause, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 

Act,35 for approving the proposed rule 

change, as modified by Amendment 

Nos. 1 and 3 thereto, prior to the 30th 

day after the date of publication of 

Amendment No. 3 in the Federal 

Register. In Amendment No. 3, the 

Exchange proposed to change the start 

date of the pilot period from August 1, 

2010 to a pilot period ending six months 

after the date of Commission approval of 

SR–NASDAQ–2010–074, because as 

originally proposed, the pilot period 

would have expired on February 1, 

2011, which is prior to the 

Commission’s approval date. By 

granting accelerated approval, the pilot 

program may be implemented without 

delay. Accordingly, the Commission 

finds that good cause exists to approve 

the proposal, as modified by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 3, on an 

accelerated basis. 

VI. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether Amendment No. 3 to 

the proposed rule change is consistent 

with the Act. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2010–074 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
14702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices 

36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

37 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3PHLX Oil Service SectorSM may also be known 

as PHLX Oil Service SectorSM Index or PHLX Oil 

Service Index. 

4The Exchange notes that changing the weighting 

of the Index from price-weighting to modified 

capitalization-weighting does not by itself require a 

rule filing proposal because both weighting 

methodologies are acceptable per the current 

generic index listing standards found in Rule 

1009A(b)(2). The weighting change is included in 

this proposal only in conjunction with increasing 

the number of Index components by more than the 

amount indicated in Rule 1009A(c)(2), which 

requires a rule filing proposal. 

5The contract specifications for OSXSM options 

are available at https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/

micro.aspx?id=phlxsectorscontractspecs. 

6A narrow-based index or industry index is 

defined as: An index designed to be representative 

of a particular industry or a group of related 

industries. The term ‘‘narrow-based index’’ includes 

indices the constituents of which are all 

headquartered within a single country. Rule 

1000A(b)(12). 

7A broad-based index or market index is defined 

as: An index designed to be representative of a 

stock market as a whole or of a range of companies 

in unrelated industries. Rule 1000A(b)(11). 

8Rule 1009A establishes generic listing standards 

for options on narrow-based and broad-based 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2010–074. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ 

sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all 

subsequent amendments, all written 

statements with respect to the proposed 

rule change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, on official business 

days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 

3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be 

available for inspection and copying at 

the principal office of the Exchange. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File No. 

SR–NASDAQ–2010–074 and should be 

submitted on or before April 7, 2011. 

VII. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,36 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–NASDAQ– 

2010–074), as modified by Amendment 

Nos. 1 and 3, be, and hereby is, 

approved on an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.37

Cathy H. Ahn, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6171 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–64075; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2011–28] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC To Expand 

the Number of Components in the 

PHLX Oil Service SectorSM Known as 

OSX SM, on Which Options Are Listed 

and Traded 

March 11, 2011. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder, 

notice is hereby given that on March 2, 

2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’ 

or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘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 is filing with the 

Commission a proposal to expand the 

number of components in the PHLX Oil 

Service SectorSM (the ‘‘Index’’ or 

‘‘OSXSM’’), on which options are listed 

and traded, and the Index weighting 

methodology [sic].3 No other changes 

are made to the Index or the options 

thereon. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http:// 

nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/ 

NASDAQOMXPHLX/Filings/, at the 

principal office of the Exchange, 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 aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposal is to 

expand to thirty the number of 

components in the PHLX Oil Service 

SectorSM or OSXSM, on which options 

are listed and traded, and change the 

Index weighting methodology to 

modified capitalization-weighted.4 No 

other changes are made to the Index or 

the options thereon. 

OSXSM options subsequent to this 

proposal will be identical to OSXSM

options that are currently listed and 

trading except for the number of 

components in and the weighting 

methodology of the underlying Index; 

and will trade pursuant to similar 

contract specifications (updated 

regarding components and weighting 

methodology).5 The only post-proposal 

difference in OSXSM options is that they 

will overly [sic] an Index with thirty 

components (the current Index has 

fifteen components) that will be 

modified capitalization-weighted (the 

current Index is price-weighted). 

Background 

The Exchange currently has initial 

listing and maintenance listing 

standards for options on indexes in Rule 

1009A that are designed to allow the 

Exchange to list options on narrowbased indexes 6 and broad based 

indexes7 pursuant to generic listing 

standards (the ‘‘Index Listing 

Standards’’).8 The PHLX Oil Service 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES