18874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 

at: www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Bill 

Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits 

Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– 

415–2100, or by email at 

william.dosch@nrc.gov. Determinations 

on requests for reasonable 

accommodation will be made on a caseby-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an email to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: March 23, 2012. 

Kenneth Hart, 

Technical Coordinator, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7539 Filed 3–26–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; NRC– 

2012–0075; License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF– 

7] 

Virginia Electric and Power Company; 

Receipt of Request for Action 

Notice is hereby given that by petition 

dated October 20, 2011, (U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s or the 

Commission’s) Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML11293A116); as supplemented by a 

letter dated November 2, 2011 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11308A027); and an 

email dated December 15, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A197); 

Paul Gunter, Kevin Kamps, Thomas 

Saporito, Paxus Calta, Alex Jack, Scott 

Price, John Cruickshank, Eleanor 

Amidon, Erika Kretzmer, Lovell King II, 

David Levy, Hilary Boyd, G. Paul 

Blundell, Erica Gray, Edmund Frost, 

and Richard Ball (the petitioners), 

request that the NRC take action with 

regard to Virginia Electric and Power 

Company’s (the licensee’s) North Anna 

Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (North 

Anna 1 and 2). The petitioners request 

that the NRC suspend the operating 

licenses for North Anna 1 and 2, until 

the completion of a set of activities 

described in the petition. 

As the basis for this request, the 

petitioners state several concerns which 

are summarized as follows: 

(1) Prior to the approval of restart for 

North Anna 1 and 2, after the 

earthquake of August 23, 2011, the 

licensee should be required to obtain a 

license amendment from the NRC that 

reanalyzes and reevaluates the plant’s 

design basis for earthquakes and for 

associated retrofits. 

(2) Prior to the approval of restart for 

North Anna 1 and 2, after the 

earthquake of August 23, 2011, the 

licensee should be required to ensure 

that North Anna 1 and 2 are subjected 

to thorough inspections of the same 

level and rigor. 

(3) The licensee should be required to 

reanalyze and requalify the adequacy 

and condition of the Lake Anna dam 

after the earthquake of August 23, 2011. 

(4) The licensee should be required to 

reanalyze and reevaluate the North 

Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation (ISFSI) due to damage 

caused by the earthquake of August 23, 

2011, and ensure that no threat is posed 

to public health and safety by its 

operation. 

(5) The licensee should ensure the 

reliability and accuracy of the seismic 

instrumentation at North Anna 1 and 2. 

(6) The NRC staff made hasty 

decisions about the restart of North 

Anna 1 and 2, and gave priority to 

economic considerations. The long-term 

action plan was not even complete 

before the NRC gave authorization to 

restart. 

(7) Regulatory commitments are an 

inadequate regulatory tool for ensuring 

that the critical long-term tasks 

identified in the NRC staff’s 

confirmatory action letter (CAL) dated 

November 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML11311A201), are completed. 

(8) The NRC should provide greater 

access to certain documents concerning 

North Anna 1 and 2, which are stored 

at the University of Virginia. 

(9) The licensee needs to address the 

possibility of both boildown and rapid 

draindown events at the North Anna 1 

and 2, spent fuel pool. 

(10) The long-term storage of spent 

fuel in the spent fuel pool at North 

Anna 1 and 2, and at the North Anna 

ISFSI poses challenges to the public 

health and safety. 

(11) ‘‘Hardened on-site storage’’ 

strategies for spent fuel should be used 

at North Anna 1 and 2. 

(12) Concerns exist about age-related 

degradation at North Anna 1 and 2. 

(13) Concerns exist about the response 

of North Anna 1 and 2, to a prolonged 

station blackout. 

(14) The current emergency 

evacuation plans for North Anna 1 and 

2, need to be revised to reflect the 

possible need to evacuate a larger area 

than that identified in the current 

emergency planning zone. 

(15) Concerns exist about damage to 

the structural integrity of the spent fuel 

pool structure at North Anna 1 and 2, 

as represented on pages 41 and 42 of the 

NRC staff’s technical evaluation for the 

restart of North Anna 1 and 2, dated 

November 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML11308B406). 

(16) There are concerns about lack of 

compliance at North Anna 1 and 2, with 

a public law requiring storage of 

potassium iodide in areas surrounding a 

nuclear reactor. 

The request is being treated pursuant 

to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, 

‘‘Requests for action under this 

subpart,’’ of the Commission’s 

regulations. The request has been 

referred to the Director of the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As 

provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate 

action will be taken on this petition 

within a reasonable time. The 

petitioners met with the NRR petition 

review board on December 12, 2011 

(corrected transcript at ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12033A025), and 

February 2, 2012 (corrected transcript at 

ADAMS Accession No. ML12047A240), 

to discuss the petition. The results of 

these discussions were considered in 

the board’s final determination to 

partially accept the petition for review, 

as communicated to the petitioners by 

letter from Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office 

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated 

March 16, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12060A090), and in establishing the 

review schedule. 

A copy of the petition is available for 

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 20852. Publicly 

available documents created or received 

at the NRC are available online through 

ADAMS in the NRC Library at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS 

Public Documents’’ and then select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 1–800– 

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of March 2012. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices 18875 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4See e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.37(a). 

5See e.g., NYSE Arca Rule 6.37(c). 

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

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Eric J. Leeds, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7434 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–66642; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2012–19] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend Commentary 

.01 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.35 

March 22, 2012. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on March 9, 

2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) 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 self-regulatory organization. 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 proposes to 

[sic] amend Commentary .01 to NYSE 

Arca Rule 6.35. The text of the proposed 

rule change is available at the Exchange, 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, and www.nyse.com. 

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 proposes to amend 

Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 

6.35 to allow certain cross trades 

effected on the Trading Floor to count 

toward the Market Maker’s appointment 

trading requirement and to make nonsubstantive changes to NYSE Arca Rules 

6.35, 6.37, 6.84, and 10.12. 

Under NYSE Arca Rule 6.35, a Market 

maker is required to effect at least 75% 

of its trading activity (measured in terms 

of contract volume per quarter) in 

classes within the Market Maker’s 

appointment. Commentary .01 to NYSE 

Arca Rule 6.35 clarifies that a Market 

Maker’s trades effected on the Trading 

Floor to accommodate cross trades 

executed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 

6.47 do not count for or against the 

Market Maker’s 75% requirement, 

regardless of whether the trades are in 

issues within or without the Market 

Maker’s appointment. 

The Exchange is proposing to amend 

Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 

6.35 to allow a Market Maker’s trades 

effected on the Trading Floor to 

accommodate cross trades executed 

pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 6.47 to 

count toward the Market Maker’s 75% 

requirement, regardless of whether the 

trades are in issues within or without 

the Market Maker’s appointment. 

Transactions of a Market Maker 

should constitute a course of dealings 

reasonably calculated to contribute to 

the maintenance of a fair and orderly 

market.4 Market Makers located on the 

Trading Floor, when trading in option 

classes other than those to which they 

are appointed, must continue to fulfill 

Market Maker obligations for that class 

as if they were appointed to such class. 

In addition, when present anywhere on 

the Options Trading Floor, with regard 

to all securities traded on the Trading 

Floor, not just those to which they are 

appointed, Market Makers may be 

required to undertake the general 

obligations of a Market Maker at any 

time in response to a demand from a 

Trading Official.5 The Exchange 

believes that a Market Maker engaging 

in such trading is fulfilling Market 

Maker obligations in addition to 

providing liquidity to the market and 

the opportunity for price improvement, 

and it is appropriate to encourage such 

activity by counting it toward the 75% 

requirement. 

In addition, the Exchange notes that 

the proposed rule change is similar to 

NYSE Amex LLC Options Rule 

923NY(i), which permits all floor trades 

executed by Floor Market Makers [sic] a 

designated Trading Zone, not just those 

to which they hold an appointment, to 

count toward the Market Maker’s 75% 

requirement. While NYSE Arca Market 

Makers are not appointed to a 

designated Trading Zone, they are 

subject to certain Market Maker 

obligations in all classes of options 

while located on the Trading Floor. As 

such, NYSE Arca believes that counting 

all floor trades, executed to 

accommodate cross transactions, is 

consistent with the application of NYSE 

Amex Rule 923NY(i) when calculating 

compliance with the 75% ‘‘in 

appointment’’ requirement. 

NYSE Arca is also proposing nonsubstantive changes to NYSE Arca Rules 

6.35, 6.37, 6.84, and 10.12. The 

Exchange proposes to replace the term 

‘‘Primary Appointment’’ which is not a 

defined term with the word 

‘‘appointment’’ as it is used elsewhere 

in NYSE Arca Rule 6.35. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The proposed rule change is 

consistent with Section 6(b) 6 of the Act, 

in general, and furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(5),7 in particular, in that 

the proposal is designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

securities, 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. 

Specifically, the proposed rule change 

will remove impediments to and perfect 

the mechanism of a free and open 

market by providing an appropriate 

incentive for Market Makers to provide 

greater liquidity and the opportunity for 

price improvement on the Trading 

Floor, thereby benefiting all market 

participants. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES