Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77019 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

Based on the above evaluation, the 

NRC staff finds that the 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(25)(i) provision is met. 

(b) 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(ii)—There is 

no significant change in the types or 

significant increase in the amounts of 

any effluents that may be released 

offsite. 

The proposed exemption, which 

would change the method of monitoring 

thermal performance of the HSMs, 

would not involve any changes to 

effluents. Therefore, there is no 

significant change in the types or 

increase in the amounts of effluents that 

may be released offsite. 

(c) 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iii)—There is 

no significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure. 

The proposed exemption, which 

would change the method of monitoring 

thermal performance of the HSMs, 

would not involve any changes to 

public or occupational radiation 

exposures. Therefore, there is no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure. 

(d) 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(iv)—There is 

no significant construction impact. 

The proposed exemption, which 

would change the method of monitoring 

thermal performance of the HSMs, 

would not involve any construction 

activities. Therefore, there is no 

significant construction impact. 

(e) 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(v)—There is 

no significant increase in the potential 

for or consequences from radiological 

accidents. 

The proposed exemption, which 

would change the method of monitoring 

thermal performance of the HSMs, 

would not involve any changes to the 

design, safety limits, or safety analysis 

assumptions associated with the cask 

system and would not create any new 

accident precursors. Therefore, there is 

no significant increase in the potential 

for or consequences from radiological 

accidents. 

As this exemption request meets all of 

the provisions in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(i)– 

(v), and the exemption request is of a 

type listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi), 

this action meets the eligibility criteria 

for the categorical exclusion set forth in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). The NRC has found 

that granting exemptions that meet the 

provisions in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) is a 

category of actions that does not result 

in any significant effect, either 

individually or cumulatively, on the 

human environment. 

The proposed exemption would allow 

NextEra to discontinue the daily visual 

inspection of the HSM air vents to 

ensure they are not blocked and instead 

use a daily temperature measurement 

program as an alternate method of 

monitoring HSM thermal performance. 

This proposed change to the method of 

monitoring HSM thermal performance 

does not involve security matters and 

would not impact the common defense 

and security of the United States. 

Given the above considerations, this 

exemption will not endanger life or 

property or the common defense and 

security. 

Otherwise in the Public Interest 

In its exemption request, NextEra 

noted that it currently complies with TS 

5.2.5.b in CoC 72–1030, Amendment 

No. 0, by using cameras to perform the 

visual surveillance of the HSM vents 

remotely. However, during adverse 

winter weather conditions, snow and 

ice obstruct the camera lenses and 

prevent viewing the HSM vents. As a 

result, personnel must conduct local 

inspections of the HSM vents and use a 

ladder to access the top vents for 

inspection, which can pose a safety 

hazard to the personnel conducting 

these inspections during adverse winter 

weather conditions. The licensee states 

that the purpose of the exemption 

request is to eliminate the potential for 

injuries that could occur to personnel 

when accessing the HSM vents to 

perform visual inspections under 

adverse winter weather conditions. 

The exemption, by removing the 

requirement for the daily visual 

inspection of the HSM vents and thus 

reducing the potential for unnecessary 

falls or injuries to personnel conducting 

the inspections during adverse winter 

weather conditions, is consistent with 

NRC’s mission to protect public health 

and safety. Therefore, the exemption is 

in the public interest. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing 

considerations, the NRC has determined 

that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the 

exemption is authorized by law, will not 

endanger life or property or the common 

defense and security, and is otherwise 

in the public interest. Therefore, the 

NRC hereby grants NextEra an 

exemption from the requirements in 10 

CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A), 10 CFR 

72.212(b)(7), and 10 CFR 72.214 for the 

Seabrook Station ISFSI, subject to the 

following conditions: 

(1) The exemption pertains only to the 

visual inspection requirement in TS 

5.2.5.b in CoC 72–1030, Amendment 

No. 0, and NextEra must implement the 

daily temperature measurement 

program, as proposed in TS 5.2.5.c in 

Amendment No. 1 to CoC 72–1030, as 

an alternate method of monitoring HSM 

thermal performance. 

(2) If comments arise during the 

rulemaking concurrence process or if 

the NRC receives significant adverse 

comments during the public comment 

period for the future proposed rule and 

direct final rule for Amendment No. 1 

to CoC 72–1030, and as a result of such 

comments, changes to the HSM thermal 

monitoring program in TS 5.2.5.c are 

required, NextEra will then be required 

to address those changes in a manner 

deemed satisfactory to NRC staff. 

The NRC has determined that this 

action meets the eligibility criteria for 

categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 

51.22(c)(25)(vi)(C). Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared in 

connection with the granting of this 

exemption. 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of December 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Douglas W. Weaver, 

Deputy Director, Division of Spent Fuel 

Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31080 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63431; File No. SR–C2– 

2010–009] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 

Options Exchange, Incorporated; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change Related to the Penny Pilot 

Program 

December 3, 2010. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that on December 

2, 2010, the C2 Options Exchange, 

Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘C2’’) 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 the proposal as 

a ‘‘non-controversial’’ proposed rule 

change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

77020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34– 

63386 (November 29, 2010). 

6 Id. 

7The month immediately preceding their 

addition to the Pilot Program, i.e., December or 

June, would not be used for purposes of the six 

month analysis. For example, a replacement class 

to be added on the second trading day following 

January 1 would be identified based on OCC 

volume data from June 1 through November 30. 

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to 

provide the Commission with written notice of its 

intent to file the proposed rule change, along with 

a brief description and text of the proposed rule 

change, at least five business days prior to the date 

of filing of the proposed rule change, or such 

shorter time as designated by the Commission. C2 

has satisfied this requirement. 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.4 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 proposing to amend 

its rules relating to the Penny Pilot 

Program. The text of the proposed rule 

change is available on the Exchange’s 

Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal/ 

crclc2rulefiling.aspx), at the Exchange’s 

Office of the Secretary, 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 those 

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 the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Rule 6.4—Minimum Increments for Bids 

and Offers to ensure that the C2 rule 

language regarding the Penny Pilot 

Program tracks that of the language of 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’) regarding 

CBOE’s Penny Pilot Program, as relevant 

to C2. CBOE recently proposed a rule 

change to amend its Rule 6.42 to extend 

CBOE’s Penny Pilot Program’s 

expiration date.5 C2 hereby amends its 

Rule 6.4 to further clarify and ensure 

that the C2 Penny Pilot Program mirrors 

that of CBOE, as applicable. 

CBOE’s Penny Pilot Program is 

scheduled to expire on December 31, 

2010. CBOE proposed to extend the 

Penny Pilot Program until December 31, 

2011.6 C2 desires to clarify that C2 also 

wants to include December 31, 2011 as 

the expiration date for the C2 Penny 

Pilot Program. Extending the Pilot 

Program will allow for further analysis 

of the Pilot Program and a 

determination of how the Pilot Program 

should be structured in the future. 

During this extension of the Pilot 

Program, C2 may replace any option 

class which is currently included in the 

Pilot Program and which is delisted 

with the next most actively-traded, 

multiple-listed option class that is not 

yet participating in the Pilot Program 

(‘‘replacement class’’). Any replacement 

class would be determined based on 

national average daily volume in the 

preceding six months, and would be 

added on the second trading day 

following January 1, 2011 and July 1, 

2011.7 C2 will announce any 

replacement classes by circular. 

C2 is specifically authorized to act 

jointly with the other options exchanges 

participating in the Penny Pilot Program 

in identifying any replacement class. C2 

will submit to the SEC semi-annual 

reports that will analyze the impact of 

the Penny Pilot on market quality and 

systems capacity. This report will 

include, but is not limited to the 

following: (1) Data and analysis of the 

number of quotations generated for 

options included in the report; (2) an 

assessment of the quotation spreads for 

the options included in the report; (3) 

an assessment of the impact of the Pilot 

Program on its automated systems; (4) 

data reflecting the size and depth of 

markets; and (5) any capacity problems 

or other problems that arose related to 

the operation of the Pilot Program and 

how the Exchange addressed them. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the rule 

proposal is consistent with the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations 

under the Act applicable to a national 

securities exchange and, in particular, 

the requirements of Section 6(b) of the 

Act.8 Specifically, the Exchange 

believes that the proposed rule change 

is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 

Act 9 requirements that the rules of an 

exchange be designed to promote just 

and equitable principles of trade, to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and, in general, to protect investors 

and the public interest. In particular, the 

proposed rule change allows for an 

extension of the Penny Pilot Program for 

the benefit of market participants. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

C2 does not believe that the proposed 

rule change will impose any burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received comments on the proposal. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change: (1) Does not significantly affect 

the protection of investors or the public 

interest; (2) does not impose any 

significant burden on competition; and 

(3) by its terms does not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of 

this filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate if consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest, the proposed rule 

change has become effective pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.11

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether 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–C2–2010–009 on the 

subject line. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2010 / Notices 77021 

12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The ORF applies to all ‘‘C’’ account origin code 

orders executed by a member on the Exchange. 

Exchange rules require each member to record the 

appropriate account origin code on all orders at the 

time of entry in order to allow the Exchange to 

properly prioritize and route orders and assess 

transaction fees pursuant to the rules of the 

Exchange and report resulting transactions to the 

OCC. See Exchange Rule 1063, Responsibilities of 

Floor Brokers, and Options Floor Procedure Advice 

F–4, Orders Executed as Spreads, Straddles, 

Combinations or Synthetics and Other Order Ticket 

Marking Requirements. The Exchange represents 

that it has surveillances in place to verify that 

members mark orders with the correct account 

origin code. 

4 In the case where one member both executes a 

transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF is 

assessed to the member only once on the execution. 

In the case where one member executes a 

transaction and a different member clears the 

transaction, the ORF is assessed only to the member 

who executes the transaction and is not assessed to 

the member who clears the transaction. In the case 

where a non-member executes a transaction and a 

member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed 

to the member who clears the transaction. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–C2–2010–009. 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 

Internet 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, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will 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 Number SR–C2– 

2010–009 and should be submitted on 

or before January 3, 2011. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.12

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31049 Filed 12–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63436; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2010–166] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 

Options Regulatory Fee 

December 6, 2010. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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

notice is hereby given that on November 

24, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. 

[sic] (‘‘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 proposes to increase its 

Options Regulatory Fee. 

While changes to the Fee Schedule 

pursuant to this proposal are effective 

upon filing, the Exchange has 

designated these changes to be operative 

on January 3, 2011. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/ 

micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the 

principal office of the Exchange, at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

and on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.sec.gov. 

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 proposed rule 

change is to amend the Options 

Regulatory Fee (‘‘ORF’’) to increase the 

current $0.0030 per contract fee to each 

member for all options transactions 

executed or cleared by the member that 

are cleared by The Options Clearing 

Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) in the customer 

range (i.e., that clear in the customer 

account of the member’s clearing firm at 

OCC). The Exchange proposes instead to 

assess a $0.0035 per contract ORF. The 

Exchange monitors the amount of 

revenue collected from the ORF to 

ensure that it, in combination with its 

other regulatory fees and fines, does not 

exceed regulatory costs. The purpose of 

the proposed rule change is to recoup 

increased regulatory expenses while 

also ensuring that the ORF would not 

exceed costs. 

The ORF is imposed upon all 

transactions executed by a member, 

even if such transactions do not take 

place on the Exchange.3 The ORF also 

includes options transactions that are 

not executed by an Exchange member 

but are ultimately cleared by an 

Exchange member.4 The ORF is not 

charged for member options 

transactions because members incur the 

costs of owning memberships and 

through their memberships are charged 

transaction fees, dues and other fees that 

are not applicable to non-members. The 

dues and fees paid by members go into 

the general funds of the Exchange, a 

portion of which is used to help pay the 

costs of regulation. The ORF is collected 

indirectly from members through their 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES