9274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

027, Docket Nos. 70–7003, 70–7004, License 

Nos. SNM–7003, SNM–2011 

Order Extending the Date by Which the 

Direct Transfer of Licenses Is To Be 

Completed 

I 

USEC Inc., (USEC) is the holder of 

materials licenses SNM–7003 and 

SNM–2011 for the American Centrifuge 

Lead Cascade Facility (Lead Cascade) 

and American Centrifuge Plant (ACP), 

respectively, which authorize the 

licensee to: (1) Possess and use source 

and special nuclear material at the Lead 

Cascade at the former Portsmouth 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, 

Ohio, in accordance with materials 

license number SNM–7003; and (2) 

construct and operate a gas centrifuge 

uranium enrichment facility (the ACP) 

at the former Portsmouth Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, Ohio, in 

accordance with materials license 

number SNM–2011. 

II 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC) Order EA–11–013, 

dated February 10, 2011, approved the 

direct transfer of the licenses of the 

above facilities from USEC to the 

limited liability company American 

Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO), 

pursuant to Sections 161(b), 161(i), 

161(o) and 184 of the Atomic Energy 

Act, as amended; 42 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 30.34(b), 10 CFR 

40.46, ‘‘Inalienability of Licenses,’’ and 

10 CFR 70.36, ‘‘Inalienability of 

Licenses.’’ By Order EA–11–180, dated 

August 8, 2011, the NRC approved an 

extension to Order EA–11–013 until 

February 9, 2012. By their terms, both 

orders will become null and void if the 

license transfers are not completed by 

February 9, 2012. However, both the 

February 10, 2011, and the August 9, 

2011, Orders further state that upon 

written application and for good cause 

shown, the implementation period for 

the license transfers may be extended by 

further Order. 

III 

By letter dated January 6, 2012, and 

supplemented by letter dated January 

27, 2012, USEC submitted a request to 

extend the date by which the license 

transfers must be completed from 

February 9, 2012, to February 8, 2013. 

USEC stated that Condition 3 of Order 

EA–11–013 will be satisfied following 

completion of actions with the DOE, 

without any linkage to the loan 

guarantee. In its January 27, 2012, letter, 

USEC stated that due to uncertainty, it 

appears that the date for completion of 

activities associated with the sub-lease 

will extend beyond May 18, 2012. 

Accordingly, USEC stated that it will 

not be able to fully implement the 

conditions in Order EA–11–013 by 

February 9, 2012, and is requesting a 

second extension to Order EA–11–013. 

USEC states that there have been no 

changes in the information and 

technical and financial qualifications 

presented in its September 10, 2010, 

request to transfer the licenses 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML102660371). The NRC 

staff notes that its basis for approving 

the transfers of USEC’s licenses for the 

Lead Cascade and the ACP from USEC 

to ACO is documented in its safety 

evaluation report (SER, ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103630748) 

supporting the February 10, 2011, 

Order. 

The NRC staff reviewed the 

information provided by USEC in its 

September 10, 2010, transfer of licenses 

request, the information provided in its 

July 22, 2011, first extension request 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML11210B497), 

and supplemental electronic 

communication dated August 1, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML11213A282), 

and the information provided in its 

January 6, 2012, second extension 

request, and supplemental letter dated 

January 27, 2012. Based on this review 

of the information provided by USEC, 

the NRC staff concludes that the basis 

for originally approving the transfers of 

USEC’s licenses for the Lead Cascade 

and the ACP from USEC to ACO 

remains valid. The NRC staff evaluated 

the January 6, 2012, submittal and the 

January 27, 2012, supplemental letter 

and determined that USEC has shown 

good cause to extend the 

implementation period of Order EA–11– 

013 a second time and, therefore, the 

implementation date for Order EA–11– 

013 should be extended to February 8, 

2013, the date by which the transfer of 

licenses must be completed. 

IV 

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 

10 CFR 30.34(b), 10 CFR 40.46, 

‘‘Inalienability of Licenses,’’ and 10 CFR 

70.36, ‘‘Inalienability of Licenses,’’ It Is 

Hereby Ordered that the date by which 

the license transfers described above 

must be completed is extended to 

February 8, 2013. If the proposed direct 

transfer of licenses is not completed by 

February 8, 2013, this Order and the 

February 10, 2011, Order shall become 

null and void. However, upon written 

application and for good cause shown, 

the February 8, 2013, date may be 

extended by further Order. 

This Order is effective upon issuance. 

The Order of February 10, 2011, as 

modified by the August 8, 2011, Order 

and this Order, remains in full force and 

effect. 

For further details with respect to this 

Order, see the submittal dated January 

6, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11210B497), the supplemental letter 

dated January 27, 2012 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12032A279), and the 

SER documenting NRC’s staff evaluation 

of USEC’s submittal dated February 8, 

2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12027A034), which may be 

examined—and/or copied for a fee—at 

the NRC’s Public Document Room, 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, 

MD 20852; and accessible online in the 

NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of February 2012. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Catherine Haney, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3675 Filed 2–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–66375; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2011–117] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its 

Automated Improvement Mechanism 

February 10, 2012. 

On December 14, 2011, the Chicago 

Board Options Exchange, Incorporated 

(‘‘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 

amend CBOE Rule 6.74A, which relates 

to the Exchange’s Automated 

Improvement Mechanism (‘‘AIM’’). The 

proposal would permit a Trading Permit 

Holder (‘‘TPH’’), when submitting an 

agency order to AIM to initiate an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 2012 / Notices 9275 

3 In an AIM auction, described here generally, a 

TPH submits into the mechanism an order that it 

represents as agent (‘‘Agency Order’’) along with a 

contra-side order at a specified price (which must 

comply with parameters set forth in Rule 6.74A) 

and for the same size that either represents 

principal interest of the TPH or is a solicited order. 

Certain Exchange participants, as set forth in Rule 

6.74A, then can compete with the contra-side order 

by submitting bids (offers) to execute against the 

Agency Order. After better-priced orders are filled 

and public customers competing at the best price 

receive their allocations, the TPH is granted priority 

ahead of other participants to execute against 40% 

(in some circumstances 50%) of the original size of 

the Agency Order. Under the proposed rule change, 

the initiating TPH will be able to elect to have last 

priority. 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66038 

(December 22, 2011), 76 FR 82016. 

5 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission has considered the proposed rule’s 

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 

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

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

7The Commission notes that Chapter V, Section 

18(f)(v) of the Rules of the Boston Exchange Group, 

LLC, ‘‘The Price Improvement Period’’ (‘‘PIP’’), 

includes a similar provision that permits an options 

participant initiating a PIP auction to designate a 

lower amount than the 40% to which it is otherwise 

entitled upon the conclusion of the PIP auction. 

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The corresponding ETFs are: the iShares MSCI 

Emerging Markets Index ETF (‘‘EEM’’), the iShares 

MSCI Brazil Index ETF (‘‘EWZ’’) and the United 

States Oil Fund (‘‘USO’’) . 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64551 

(May 26, 2011), 76 FR 32000 (June 2, 2011) 

(approving SR–CBOE–2011–026). 

5This fee is assessed to help the Exchange recoup 

license fees the Exchange pays to the different 

index licensors in order to list options on the 

respective indexes. 

6See Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule. 

7See Section 1 (Index Options), VII.(B) to the Fees 

Schedule. The Product Research & Development fee 

is assessed to help offset some of the costs and 

expenses expended for product research and 

development and ongoing maintenance of CBOE’s 

products. The Product Research & Development fee 

applies to all non-public customer transactions (i.e., 

CBOE and non-Trading Permit Holder marketmaker, Clearing Trading Permit Holder and brokerdealer), including voluntary professionals and 

professionals. See Footnote 12 of the Fees Schedule. 

auction, to elect to have last priority in 

the AIM auction’s order allocation.3

The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on December 29, 2011.4 The 

Commission received no comments on 

the proposal. 

After careful review, the Commission 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange 5 and, in particular, 

the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of 

the Act,6 in that it is designed to provide 

additional flexibility for TPHs to obtain 

executions on behalf of their customers 

through AIM because the initiating TPH 

may elect to have last priority. The 

Commission believes that, as a result of 

this flexibility, there may be increased 

usage of AIM auctions and the 

mechanism may attract new 

participants, thereby helping to further 

competition and to enhance the 

possibility of price improvement on 

behalf of customers.7

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2011– 

117) be, and it hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3607 Filed 2–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–66382; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2012–014] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change To Establish Transaction 

Fees for Options on the CBOE 

Emerging Markets ETF Volatility Index, 

the CBOE Brazil ETF Volatility Index 

and CBOE Oil ETF Volatility Index 

February 10, 2012. 

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 February 

1, 2012, the Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘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 

CBOE proposes to amend its Fees 

Schedule to establish fees for 

transactions in options on the CBOE 

Emerging Market ETF Volatility Index 

(‘‘VXEEM’’), the CBOE Brazil ETF 

Volatility Index (‘‘VXEWZ’’) and the 

CBOE Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index 

(‘‘OVX’’). The text of the proposed rule 

change is available on the Exchange’s 

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

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 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 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange received approval to 

list and trade options on the CBOE 

Emerging Market ETF Volatility Index 

(‘‘VXEEM’’), the CBOE Brazil ETF 

Volatility Index (‘‘VXEWZ’’) and the 

CBOE Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index 

(‘‘OVX’’) (collectively herein, ‘‘volatility 

indexes’’), which are up-to-the-minute 

market estimates of the expected 

volatility of their corresponding 

exchange-traded funds (‘‘ETF’’) 3

calculated by using real-time bid/ask 

quotes of CBOE listed options on the 

respective ETF.4 The volatility indexes 

use nearby and second nearby options 

with at least 8 days left to expiration 

and then weights them to yield a 

constant, 30-day measure of the 

expected (implied) volatility. The 

Exchange will list VXEEM options 

beginning on January 30, 2012, VXEWZ 

options beginning on February 20, 2012 

and OVX options beginning on March 6, 

2012. 

The purpose of this rule change is to 

clarify that the existing transaction fees 

for ‘‘Volatility Indexes’’ shall apply for 

transactions in VXEEM options, VXEWZ 

options and OVX options except that 

the existing Surcharge Fee (currently 

$.10 per contract for Volatility Index 

options) will not apply to VXEEM 

options, VXEWZ options and OVX 

options.5 In addition, the Exchange’s 

marketing fee 6 shall not apply to 

VXEEM options, VXEWZ options and 

OVX options. The Product Research & 

Development fee shall apply to VXEEM 

options, VXEWZ options and OVX 

options at the rate of $0.10 per 

contract.7

For reference, the existing Volatility 

Index transactions fees that will apply 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES