12092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

10 CFR 50.55a. This action effectively 

minimizes the differences in preservice 

examination requirements when 

developing the ISI program but is not 

mandatory. 

For its initial 120-month interval, a 

COL licensee may submit to the NRC a 

request to authorize an alternative to use 

a different edition and addenda of 

ASME B&PV Code, Section III, than that 

established in the design certification 

application, or an earlier edition and 

addenda of ASME B&PV Code, Section 

XI, than that required by 10 CFR 

50.55a(g)(3)(i), for developing its PSI 

program. According to 10 CFR 50.55a, 

the COL licensee would need to 

demonstrate that (1) this edition and 

addenda of ASME B&PV Code, Section 

III or XI, would provide an acceptable 

level of quality and safety, or (2) 

compliance with the specified 

requirement to use the latest edition and 

addenda would result in hardship or 

unusual difficulty without a 

compensating increase in the level of 

quality and safety. 

Risk-Informed IST and ISI Programs 

On several occasions, the NRC staff 

has been asked to define its position on 

Risk-Informed IST and ISI program 

submittals during the COL application 

process. A COL applicant or licensee 

may submit Risk-Informed IST and ISI 

programs for NRC staff review and 

authorization as an alternative to the 

regulations as described in 10 CFR 

50.55a. The COL applicant or licensee 

will need to satisfy the requirements for 

authorization of an alternative as 

specified in 10 CFR 50.55a. 

The NRC staff recommends that a 

conventional IST or ISI program be in 

place or developed before preparing a 

Risk-Informed IST or ISI program to 

facilitate the evaluation of the 

acceptability of the alternative program. 

This recommendation is based solely on 

the fact that the existing design 

certification applications, the Standard 

Review Plan acceptance criteria, the 

applicable NUREG documents, and the 

COL applications conform to the 

premise that conventional IST/ISI 

programs have been developed prior to 

a Risk-Informed program. No regulation 

requires that a conventional IST/ISI 

program be developed prior to a RiskInformed IST or ISI program submission 

as an alternative. However, the NRC 

staff considers this approach to provide 

the most expedient course for review 

and approval of a Risk Informed IST or 

ISI program. 

Backfit Discussion 

This RIS clarifies current regulatory 

requirements and provides voluntary 

options that a COL licensee may 

propose. The RIS imposes no new 

requirements and necessitates no action 

or written response. Therefore, it does 

not constitute a backfit under 10 CFR 

50.109, ‘‘Backfitting,’’ and the staff did 

not perform a backfit analysis. 

Congressional Review Act 

[Discussion to be provided in the final 

RIS.] 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This RIS does not contain new or 

amended information collection 

requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approved the existing requirements 

under OMB approval numbers 3150– 

0011 and 3150–0151. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, an information collection unless the 

requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Contact 

Please direct any questions about this 

matter to Andrea Russell, Project 

Manager, telephone 301–415–8553, or 

email Andrea.Russell@nrc.gov. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of February 2012. 

Kimyata Morgan-Butler, 

Acting Chief, Generic Communications 

Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4647 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission will hold a Closed Meeting 

on Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the 

Commissioners, the Secretary to the 

Commission, and recording secretaries 

will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain 

staff members who have an interest in 

the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the 

Commission, or his designee, has 

certified that, in his opinion, one or 

more of the exemptions set forth in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) 

and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) 

and (10), permit consideration of the 

scheduled matters at the Closed 

Meeting. 

Commissioner Paredes, as duty 

officer, voted to consider the items 

listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed 

session. 

The subject matter of the Closed 

Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 

1, 2012 will be: 

Institution and settlement of injunctive 

actions; 

Institution and settlement of 

administrative proceedings; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement 

proceedings. 

At times, changes in Commission 

priorities require alterations in the 

scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to 

ascertain what, if any, matters have been 

added, deleted or postponed, please 

contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 

551–5400. 

February 23, 2012. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4808 Filed 2–24–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–66442; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2012–012] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating To 

Raising the Limit for Simplified 

Arbitration 

February 22, 2012. 

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 February 9, 

2012, Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) 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 

substantially prepared by FINRA. 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 

FINRA is proposing to amend 

FINRA’s Customer and Industry Codes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 12093 

3 In 1998, FINRA raised the amount in dispute for 

simplified arbitration from $10,000 to $25,000. See 

NASD, Notice to Members 98–90 (New Arbitrator 

List Selection Rules And Monetary Thresholds For 

Simplified And Single Arbitrator Cases Take Effect). 

4Under the simplified procedures for customer 

cases, only the customer may request a hearing 

(regardless of whether the customer or the firm 

initiated the arbitration). Under the simplified 

procedures in the Industry Code, only the claimant 

may request a hearing. 

5Under Rules 12100(n) and 13100(n), a hearing 

session means any meeting between the parties and 

arbitrators of four hours or less, including a 

prehearing conference. 

6Since the arbitrator assesses the hearing session 

fees, either the claimant or the respondent could 

realize the savings. 7 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). 

of Arbitration Procedure to raise the 

limit for simplified arbitration from 

$25,000 to $50,000. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on FINRA’s Web site at 

http://www.finra.org, at the principal 

office of FINRA, 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, 

FINRA 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. FINRA 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 

FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA 

Rules 12401 (Number of Arbitrators) 

and 12800 (Simplified Arbitration) of 

the Code of Arbitration Procedure for 

Customer Disputes (‘‘Customer Code’’), 

and FINRA Rules 13401 (Number of 

Arbitrators) and 13800 (Simplified 

Arbitration) of the Code of Arbitration 

Procedure for Industry Disputes 

(‘‘Industry Code’’), to raise the limit for 

simplified arbitration from $25,000 to 

$50,000. 

Currently, FINRA offers streamlined 

arbitration procedures for claimants 

seeking damages of $25,000 or less. 

Under the simplified arbitration rules, 

one chair-qualified arbitrator decides a 

claim and issues an award based on the 

written submissions of the parties, 

unless, in a customer case, the customer 

requests a hearing, or, in an industry 

case, the claimant requests a hearing. 

FINRA also streamlines discovery for 

these cases. 

The $25,000 threshold has been in 

place since 1998 3 and, at that time, 

captured 21 percent of all cases filed 

with the forum. Currently, the $25,000 

threshold captures ten percent of 

FINRA’s caseload. Statistics for 2011 

indicate that raising the threshold to 

$50,000 would increase the percentage 

of claims administered under simplified 

arbitration to 17 percent of the claims 

filed with the forum. FINRA staff 

believes that raising the threshold for 

simplified arbitration to $50,000 would 

benefit forum users in a number of 

ways. 

First, forum fees for simplified 

arbitration claims would be reduced. 

Under FINRA Rules 12800 and 13800, 

no hearing is held unless the customer 

or claimant requests one.4 Under the 

current fee schedule, FINRA charges 

$450 per hearing session for claims 

between $25,000 and $50,000. Under 

the proposed rule change, parties who 

choose to have their dispute resolved 

‘‘on the papers’’ (i.e., based on the 

pleadings and other materials submitted 

by the parties) would save the $450 

hearing session fee.5 In the event that a 

case would have required two hearing 

sessions (one full day), the fee savings 

would be $900.6 Further, under Rules 

12903 and 13903 (Process Fees Paid by 

Members), members are assessed a nonrefundable hearing process fee of $1,000 

for claims between $25,000.01 and 

$50,000 when a hearing date and 

location are set. Under the proposal, if 

the dispute is resolved on the papers, 

members would not have to pay this fee. 

Second, parties would save the time 

and expense of preparing for, 

scheduling, and traveling to the hearing. 

Third, customers who are not able to 

retain an attorney to handle their case 

because of the small amount in dispute, 

and who are not comfortable appearing 

at an evidentiary hearing without 

representation, would have the 

flexibility to choose whether to request 

a hearing. 

Finally, raising the limit for cases 

decided on the papers would reduce the 

time to process the cases because the 

arbitrator and parties would not need to 

coordinate their calendars to schedule a 

hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, FINRA 

is proposing to amend Rules 12401(a) 

and 13401(a) to provide that if the 

amount of a claim is $50,000 or less, 

exclusive of interest and expenses, the 

panel would consist of one arbitrator 

and the claim would be subject to the 

simplified arbitration rules. FINRA 

would amend Rules 12401(c) and 

13401(c) to state that if the amount of 

a claim is more than $50,000, but not 

more than $100,000, exclusive of 

interest and expenses, the panel will 

consist of one arbitrator unless the 

parties agree in writing to three 

arbitrators. The provisions relating to 

claims of more than $100,000 would 

remain the same. 

FINRA is proposing to amend Rules 

12800(a) and 13800(a) to provide that 

the simplified arbitration rules apply to 

claims involving $50,000 or less, 

exclusive of interest and expenses. 

FINRA would amend Rules 12800(e) 

and 13800(e) to state that if any 

pleading increased the amount in 

dispute to more than $50,000, FINRA 

would no longer administer the claim 

under the simplified arbitration rules. 

2. Statutory Basis 

FINRA believes that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the provisions 

of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,7 which 

requires, among other things, that 

FINRA rules must be 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. FINRA believes that 

raising the threshold for simplified 

arbitration would, as referenced above, 

improve efficiency and reduce fees for 

claims up to $50,000, enhancing the 

forum for its users. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

FINRA does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will result in 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 

Written comments were neither 

solicited nor received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period (i) 

as the Commission may designate up to 

90 days of such date if it finds such 

longer period to be appropriate and 

publishes its reasons for so finding or 

(ii) as to which the self-regulatory 

organization consents, the Commission 

will: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Notices 

8 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. 66012 

(December 20, 2011), 76 FR 80998 (December 27, 

2011) (SR–BX–2011–073). 

4 Id. at 80998. 

(A) By order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

(B) Institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

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 email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–FINRA–2012–012 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–FINRA–2012–012. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email 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 such filing 

also will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of 

FINRA. 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–FINRA–2012–012 and 

should be submitted on or before March 

20, 2012. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.8

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4596 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–66440; File No. SR–BX– 

2012–010] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Modify 

Certain External and Inter-Cabinet 

Connectivity Fees 

February 22, 2012. 

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 February 

14, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ 

or ‘‘Exchange’’) 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 the Substance 

of the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to modify 

certain external and inter-cabinet 

connectivity fees. The text of the 

proposed rule change is available at 

http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, 

at the Exchange’s principal office, 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 the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

Rule 7034(b) to reduce fees for low 

latency connectivity to Toronto and 

Chicago venues; and to increase certain 

fees for other forms of connectivity. 

Low Latency Connectivity 

On December 20, 2011, the 

Commission approved the Exchange’s 

offering of low latency point-to-point 

telecommunications connectivity from 

the Exchange’s co-location facility to 

select financial trading and co-location 

venues in the metropolitan New York/ 

New Jersey area, Toronto, and Chicago.3

The enhanced point-to-point 

connectivity provides the Exchange’s 

co-location customers the opportunity 

to obtain low latency network 

connectivity with greater ease and at a 

competitive price.4

The Exchange now proposes a passthrough reduction in the fees for 

connectivity to Toronto and Chicago 

venues as follows: (1) For 100MB 

connectivity to the Toronto area, a 

reduction of the installation fee from 

$5,150 to $4,850, and a reduction of the 

per-month connectivity fee from $4,350 

to $4,100; (2) for 1G connectivity to the 

Toronto area, a reduction of the 

installation fee from $8,200 to $7,700, 

and a reduction of the per-month 

connectivity fee from $10,450 to $9,850; 

(3) for 10G connectivity to the Toronto 

area, a reduction of the installation fee 

from $15,150 to $14,200, and a 

reduction of the per-month connectivity 

fee from $32,400 to $28,400; (4) for 

100MB connectivity to the Chicago area, 

a reduction of the installation fee from 

$4,850 to $3,500, and a reduction of the 

per-month connectivity fee from $8,350 

to $7,350; (5) for 1G connectivity to the 

Chicago area, a reduction of the 

installation fee from $5,900 to $4,900, 

and a reduction of the per-month 

connectivity fee from $16,400 to 

$12,800; (6) for 10G connectivity to the 

Chicago area, a reduction of the 

installation fee from of [sic] $12,050 to 

$10,650, and a reduction of the permonth connectivity fee from $39,750 to 

$26,900. 

The reductions in fees are the result 

of the Exchange obtaining a reduction in 

the fees charged to the Exchange by the 

Toronto and Chicago low latency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES