Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80551 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 

staff SE. Table 3 in the staff’s August 4, 

2005, SE of BAW–2308, Revision 1, 

contains the NRC staff-accepted IRTTO

and corresponding initial uncertainty 

term, sI, for specific Linde 80 weld wire 

heat numbers. In accordance with the 

conditions and limitations outlined in 

the NRC staff’s August 4, 2005 SE of TR 

BAW–2308, Revision 1, for utilizing the 

values in Table 3, the licensee’s 

proposed methodology (1) utilized the 

appropriate NRC staff-accepted IRTTo

and sI values for Linde 80 weld wire 

heat numbers; (2) applied the 

appropriate chemistry factors for 

temperatures greater than 167 °F (the 

weld wire heat-specific chemical 

composition, via the methodology of RG 

1.99, Revision 2, indicated that higher 

chemistry factors are applicable); (3) 

applied a value of 28 °F for sD in the 

margin term; and (4) submitted values 

for DRTNDT and the margin term for each 

Linde 80 weld in the RPV through the 

end of the current operating license. 

Additionally, the NRC’s SE for TR 

BAW–2308, Revision 2, concludes that 

the revised IRTT0 and sI values for 

Linde 80 weld materials are acceptable 

for referencing in plant-specific 

licensing applications as delineated in 

TR BAW–2308, Revision 2, and to the 

extent specified under Section 4.0, 

Limitations and Conditions, of the SE, 

which states: ‘‘Future plant-specific 

applications for RPVs containing weld 

heat 72105, and weld heat 299L44, of 

Linde 80 welds must use the revised 

IRTT0 and sI, values in TR BAW–2308, 

Revision 2.’’ The staff notes that neither 

of these weld heats is used at DBNPS. 

Therefore, all conditions and limitations 

outlined in the NRC staff SEs for TR 

BAW–2308, Revisions 1–A and 2–A, 

have been met for DBNPS. 

The use of the methodology in TR 

BAW–2308, Revision 1, will ensure the 

PTS evaluation developed for the 

DBNPS RPV will continue to be based 

on an adequately conservative estimate 

of RPV material properties and ensure 

the RPV will be protected from failure 

during a PTS event. Also, when 

additional fracture toughness data 

relevant to the evaluation of the DBNPS 

RPV welds is acquired as part of the 

surveillance program, this data must be 

incorporated into the evaluation of the 

DBNPS RPV fracture toughness 

requirements. 

Based on the above, no new accident 

precursors are created by allowing an 

exemption to use an alternate 

methodology to comply with the 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.61 in 

determining adjusted/indexing 

reference temperatures, thus, the 

probability of postulated accidents is 

not increased. Also, based on the above, 

the consequences of postulated 

accidents are not increased. Therefore, 

there is no undue risk to public health 

and safety. On February 3, 2010, a new 

rule, 10 CFR 50.61a, ‘‘Alternate Fracture 

Toughness Requirements for Protection 

Against PTS Events,’’ became effective. 

The NRC staff reviewed this new rule 

against the licensee’s exemption request 

and determined that there is no effect on 

the exemption request. The new rule 

does not modify the requirements from 

which the licensee has sought an 

exemption, and the alternative provided 

by the new rule does not address the 

scope of issues associated with both 10 

CFR 50.61 and 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix G that the requested 

exemption does. 

Consistent With Common Defense and 

Security 

The proposed exemption would allow 

the licensee to use an alternate 

methodology to allow the use of fracture 

toughness test data for evaluating the 

integrity of the DBNPS RPV beltline 

welds. This change has no relation to 

security issues. Therefore, the common 

defense and security is not impacted by 

these exemptions. 

Special Circumstances 

Special circumstances, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present 

whenever application of the regulation 

in the particular circumstances is not 

necessary to achieve the underlying 

purpose of the rule. The underlying 

purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G 

and 10 CFR 50.61 is to protect the 

integrity of the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary by ensuring that each reactor 

vessel material has adequate fracture 

toughness. Therefore, since the 

underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix G and 10 CFR 50.61 is 

achieved by an alternative methodology 

for evaluating RPV material fracture 

toughness, the special circumstances 

required by 10 CFR 50(a)(2)(ii) for the 

granting of an exemption from portions 

of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix G and 10 CFR 50.61 exist. 

4.0 Conclusion 

The staff has reviewed the licensee’s 

submittals and concludes that the 

licensee has provided adequate 

justification for its request for an 

exemption from certain requirements of 

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 

CFR 50.61, to allow an alternative 

methodology that is based on using 

fracture toughness test data to determine 

initial, unirradiated properties for 

evaluating the integrity of the DBNPS 

RPV beltline welds. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ an 

exemption from certain requirements of 

Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 

CFR 50.61 is authorized by law and will 

not endanger life or property or the 

common defense and security, and is 

otherwise in the public interest. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of 

no significant impact,’’ the Commission 

has previously determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment (75 FR 76498). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of December 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, 

Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32141 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63551; File No. SR–CME– 

2010–01] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule 

Change Relating to Amendments to 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s Rules 

Governing Contract Specifications for 

Physically Delivered Single Security 

Futures 

December 15, 2010. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on 

December 7, 2010, Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange Inc. (‘‘CME’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed 

rule change described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. CME 

also has filed this proposed rule change 

concurrently with the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’). 

CME filed a written certification with 

the CFTC under Section 5c(c) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act on November 

24, 2010. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
80552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 

2 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

CME proposes to amend its Rules 

governing the trade of physically 

delivered single security futures. 

Specifically, the Exchange intends to 

delist futures on three (3) Exchange 

Traded Funds (ETFs), specifically the 

Nasdaq-100 Tracking StockSM

(‘‘QQQQ’’), Standard & Poor’s Depositary 

Receipts® (‘‘SPDR’’) and iShares Russell 

2000 (‘‘IWM’’). 

The text of the proposed rule changed 

[sic] is as follows (brackets indicate 

words to be deleted; italics indicate 

words to be added): 

CHAPTER 710: PHYSICALLY 

DELIVERED SINGLE SECURITY 

FUTURES 71004. APPROVED 

SECURITIES 

The following securities have been 

approved by the Board of Directors as 

the subject of Physically Delivered 

Single Security Futures Contracts: 

Approved security Unit of trading Minimum fluctuation 

Position limit in 

expiring contract in 

last 5 trading days 

[Nasdaq-100 Tracking StockSM (‘‘QQQQ’’)] .......................... [200 Shares] ..... [$0.01 or $2.00 per contract] ................ [11,250] 

[Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipts® (‘‘SPDR’’)] ........... [100 Shares] ..... [$0.01 or $1.00 per contract] ................ [22,500] 

[iShares Russell 2000 (‘‘IWM’’)] ............................................ [200 Shares] ..... [$0.01 or $2.00 per contract] ................ [11,250] 

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 

self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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 

CME intends to delist futures on three 

(3) Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), 

specifically the Nasdaq-100 Tracking 

StockSM (‘‘QQQQ’’), Standard & Poor’s 

Depositary Receipts® (‘‘SPDR’’) and 

iShares Russell 2000 (‘‘IWM’’), because 

trading activity has been de minimis in 

these products as illustrated below. 

AVERAGE DAILY VOLUME

Jan–Oct 2010 2009 

Nasdaq-100 Tracking StockSM (‘‘QQQQ’’) ...................................................................................................... 1 1 

Standard & Poor’s Depositary Receipts® (‘‘SPDR’’) ....................................................................................... 4 7 

iShares Russell 2000 (‘‘IWM’’) ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2. Statutory Basis 

CME believes that the proposed 

delistings are consistent with Section 6 

of the Act.2 CME believes the rule 

changes are designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, and, in general to 

protect investors and the public interest, 

because the proposed rule change 

merely delists products that have had a 

de minimus amount of historical trading 

activity on CME. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

CME does not believe that the 

proposed action will have an impact on 

competition because the proposed rule 

change merely delists products that 

have had a de minimus amount of 

historical trading activity on CME. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

Comments on the proposed rule 

change have not been solicited. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The proposed rule change has become 

effective on December 7, 2010. 

However, CME intends to implement 

this delisting in such a way as to avoid 

impacting any current positions in these 

markets. Accordingly, CME will not 

delist any contract months while there 

are open positions. Rather, CME will 

simply refrain from listing any new 

contracts. To the extent that open 

interest declines to zero in any contract 

month listed subsequent to December 7, 

2010, CME shall retire that contract 

month. Note that, as of Friday, 

November 12, 2010, there were a total 

of 14 open positions in the SPDR 

contract with 5 open contracts in 

December 2010 and 9 open contracts in 

January 2011. There was a total of 9 

open positions in the QQQQ contract, 

all held in the December 2010 contract. 

Finally, there were zero (0) open 

positions held in the IWN [sic] contract. 

Within 60 days of the date of 

effectiveness of the proposed rule 

change, the Commission, after 

consultation with the CFTC, may 

summarily abrogate the proposed rule 

change and require that the proposed 

rule change be refiled in accordance 

with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) 

of the Act.3

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: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 2010 / Notices 80553 

4The text of the proposed rule change is available 

on the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.sec.gov. 

5 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63187 

(October 27, 2010), 75 FR 67424 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4CBOE Rule 6.45(e) states that ‘‘A complex order 

as defined in Rule 6.42.01 may be executed at a net 

debit or credit price with another Trading Permit 

Holder without giving priority to equivalent bids 

(offers) in the individual series legs that are 

represented in the trading crowd or in the public 

customer limit order book provided at least one leg 

of the order betters the corresponding bid (offer) in 

the public customer limit order book by at least one 

minimum trading increment as defined in Rule 6.42 

(i.e., $0.10, $0.05 or $0.01, as applicable) or a $0.01 

increment, which increment shall be determined by 

the Exchange on a class-by-class basis. Stock-option 

orders and security future-option orders, as defined 

in Rule 1.1(ii)(a) and Rule 1.1(zz)(a), respectively, 

have priority over bids (offers) of the trading crowd 

but not over bids (offers) in the public customer 

limit order book.’’ 

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–CME–2010–01 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. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CME–2010–01. 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 inspection and copying 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.4 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–CME–2010–01 and should 

be submitted on or before January 12, 

2011. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.5

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32086 Filed 12–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63558; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex–2010–100] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex LLC; Order Approving a 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Complex Orders 

December 16, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

On October 20, 2010, NYSE Amex 

LLC (‘‘NYSE Amex’’ 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 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 

change to: (i) Add to Rule 900.3NY(h) a 

definition of ‘‘Stock/Complex Order;’’ 

(ii) revise Rule 963NY(d) to update the 

provisions governing open outcry 

trading of Complex Orders and Stock/ 

option Orders and apply these 

provisions to Stock/Complex Orders; 

(iii) delete Rule 963.1NY; (iv) add Rule 

980NY(e) to establish an electronic 

Complex Order Auction (‘‘COA’’); and 

(v) revise other provisions of Rule 

980NY to include Stock/Complex 

Orders. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on November 2, 2010.3 The 

Commission received no comments 

regarding the proposal. This order 

approves the proposed rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

A. Definition of Stock/Complex Order 

The proposal amends Rule 

900.3NY(h) to add a definition of 

‘‘Stock/Complex Order.’’ Rule 

900.3NY(h)(2) defines a ‘‘Stock/Complex 

Order’’ as the purchase or sale of a 

Complex Order, as defined in Rule 

900.3NY(e), coupled with an order to 

buy or sell a stated number of units of 

an underlying stock or a security 

convertible into the underlying stock 

(‘‘convertible security’’) representing 

either (A) the same number of units of 

the underlying stock or convertible 

security as are represented by the 

options leg of the Complex Order with 

the least number of options contracts, or 

(B) the number of units of the 

underlying stock necessary to create a 

delta neutral position, but in no case in 

a ratio greater than eight options 

contracts per unit of trading of the 

underlying stock or convertible security 

established for that series by the 

Clearing Corporation, as represented by 

the options leg of the Complex Order 

with the least number of options 

contracts. 

B. Revisions To Open Outcry Rules 

The proposal revises paragraph (d) of 

Rule 963NY, ‘‘Priority and Order 

Allocation Procedures—Open Outcry,’’ 

to update the provisions governing the 

trading of Complex Orders Stock/option 

Orders in open outcry. Rule 963NY(d), 

as amended, will also apply to Stock/ 

Complex Orders trading in open outcry. 

According to the Exchange, the changes 

to Rule 963NY(d) streamline and update 

the text of Rule 963NY(d), but do not 

alter the Exchange’s existing procedures 

for trading Complex Orders or Stock/ 

option Orders, or the priority of 

quotations and orders. The Exchange 

notes that the Rule 963NY(d), as 

amended, is based on Chicago Board 

Options Exchange, Incorporated 

(‘‘CBOE’’) Rule 6.45(e).4

Under Rule 963(d), as amended, 

Complex Orders, as defined in Rule 

900.3NY(e), and Stock/Complex Orders, 

as defined in Rule 900.3(h)(2), may be 

executed at a net debit or credit with 

another ATP Holder without giving 

priority to equivalent bids (offers) in the 

individual series legs that are 

represented in the Trading Crowd or 

Customer limit orders in the 

Consolidated Book, provided that at 

least one options leg of the order betters 

the corresponding Customer bid (offer) 

in the Consolidated Book by at least one 

minimum trading increment, as defined 

in Rule 960NY (i.e., $0.10, $0.50, or 

$0.01, as applicable), or a $0.01 

increment, as determined by the 

Exchange on a class-by-class basis. 

Stock/option Orders, as defined in Rule 

900.3(h)(1), have priority over 

equivalent bids (offers) of the trading 

crowd, but not over equivalent 

Customer bids (offers) in the 

Consolidated Book. 

In addition, Rule 963NY(d) provides 

that bids and offers for Complex Orders, 

Stock/option Orders, and Stock/ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES