Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 15002-15003 [2011-6313]

Download as PDF Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 15002 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices Procedure 95003, ‘‘Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red Input,’’ and (6) require Entergy VY to apply for an amendment to its license renewal that would address both aging analysis and aging management of all buried piping carrying or with the potential to carry radionuclides and/or the potential to interact with any safety or safety-related system. Mr. Saporito requested in his petition that the NRC (1) order a cold-shutdown mode of operation for VY because of leaking radioactive tritium and (2) issue a confirmatory order modifying the NRC-issued license for VY so that the licensee must bring the nuclear reactor to a cold-shutdown mode of operation until the licensee can provide definitive reasonable assurance to the NRC, under affirmation, that the reactor will be operated in full compliance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ and General Design Criteria 60, ‘‘Control of Releases of Radioactive Materials to the Environment,’’ and 64, ‘‘Monitoring Radioactivity Releases,’’ of Appendix A, ‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to 10 CFR Part 50, and with other NRC regulations and authority. The requests are being treated under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s regulations. The requests have been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will take appropriate action on this consolidated petition within a reasonable time. Each petitioner stated that the tritium leak is just one example of many maintenance and management failures at VY. All three raised a concern about what they perceive as the NRC’s failure to examine the deficiencies at VY in an integrated manner. Although the individual petition was written to request enforcement action specifically because of the tritium leak, during each of the transcribed phone calls, each petitioner urged the NRC to take a broader view and assess operational and performance failures at VY collectively instead of individually. This concern has met the criteria for review in accordance with Management Directive 8.11, ‘‘Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions.’’ Subsequently, the Petition Review Board recommended that the NRC accept the consolidated petition for review for the following specific issues and concerns identified in the petitions and supplemented during the teleconferences: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 1. Increasing concentrations of radiocontaminants in the soil and groundwater at VY, as well as an increasing area of contamination, are manifest on a daily basis. VY risks aggravating the contamination by continuing to run the reactor at full power while attempting over a period of a month to triangulate the location of a presumed leak by drilling a series of test wells in the affected area. 2. During the license renewal application proceeding, the licensee averred that it was unaware of the existence of some buried pipes, now uncovered, and it has yet to discover their path and purpose. 3. Entergy has, in 8 years of ownership, failed to learn and understand VY’s design, layout, and construction. This failure to comprehend and understand the layout, function, and potentially the interaction of the plant’s own piping systems constitutes a loss of design basis. 4. The NRC’s ROP has apparently failed to capture, anticipate, and prevent ongoing maintenance, engineering, quality assurance, and operation issues that have manifested themselves in a series of high-profile incidents since Entergy took over VY. The agency has repeatedly failed to detect root cause trends until they have, as in this instance, become grossly self-revealing. 5. The NRC should ensure that Entergy has adequate decommissioning funds. The tritium leak will increase decommissioning costs because of the need for site radiological examination and soil remediation. The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director’s Decision to the petitioners and the licensee for comment on January 20, 2011. The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed Director’s Decision. The NRR staff determined that the activities requested by the petitioners have been completed, with the exception of immediate cold shutdown of Vermont Yankee. Therefore, the Director of NRR concludes that the petition has been granted in part and denied in part. The reasons for this decision are explained in the Director’s Decision (DD–11–03) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. Copies of the petitions (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML100190688, ML100470430, and ML100621374) and the Director’s Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML110540558) are available for inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Maryland 20852, and from the NRC’s ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. NRC Management Directive 8.11, ‘‘Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328), describes the petition review process. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy of the Director’s Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission’s review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s regulations. As provided for by this regulation, the Director’s Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director’s Decision in that time. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of March, 2011. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eric J. Leeds, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2011–6400 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549–0213. Extension: Rule 611; SEC File No. 270–540; OMB Control No. 3235–0600. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval for Rule 611 (17 CFR 242.611)—Order Protection Rule. On June 9, 2005, effective August 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 37496, June 29, 2005), the Commission adopted Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES seq.) to require any national securities exchange, national securities association, alternative trading system, exchange market maker, over-thecounter market maker and any other broker-dealer that executes orders internally by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent, to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of a transaction in its market at a price that is inferior to a bid or offer displayed in another market at the time of execution (a ‘‘trade-though’’), absent an applicable exception and, if relying on an exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with the terms of the exception. Without this collection of information, respondents would not have a means to enforce compliance with the Commission’s intention to prevent trade-throughs pursuant to the rule. There are approximately 658 respondents 1 per year that will require an aggregate total of 39,480 hours to comply with this rule.2 It is anticipated that each respondent will continue to expend approximately 60 hours annually: two hours per month of internal legal time and three hours per month of internal compliance time to ensure that its written policies and procedures are up-to-date and remain in compliance with Rule 611. The estimated cost for an in-house attorney is $354 per hour and the estimated cost for an assistant compliance director in the securities industry is $320 per hour. Therefore the estimated total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden is as follows: [(2 legal hours × 12 months × $354) × 658] + [(3 compliance hours × 12 months × $320) × 658] = $13,170,528.3 There are no longer startup costs associated with Rule 611. Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 1 This estimate includes thirteen national securities exchanges and one national securities association that trade NMS stocks. The estimate also includes the approximately 601 firms that were registered equity market makers or specialists at year-end 2009, as well as 43 alternative trading systems that operate trading systems that trade NMS stocks. 2 The one-time hour burden associated with developing the required policies and procedures is no longer applicable. 3 The total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden has been revised to reflect updated estimated cost figures for an in-house attorney and an assistant compliance director. These figures are from SIFMA’s Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2010, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour workyear and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:30 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Dated: March 14, 2011. Cathy H. Ahn, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–6313 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549–0213. Extension: Form N–8B–4; SEC File No. 270–180; OMB Control No. 3235–0247. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for extension and approval. Form N–8B–4 (17 CFR 274.14) is the form used by face-amount certificate companies to comply with the filing and disclosure requirements imposed by PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 15003 Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–8(b)). Form N–8B–4 requires disclosure about the face-amount certificate company’s organization, controlling persons, business, policies, securities, investment adviser, depositary, management personnel, compensation, and financial statements. The Commission uses the information provided in the collection of information to determine compliance with Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Based on the Commission’s industry statistics, the Commission estimates that there would be approximately one annual filing on Form N–8B–4. The Commission estimates that each registrant filing a Form N–8B–4 would spend 171 hours in preparing and filing the Form and that the total hour burden for all Form N–8B–4 filings would be 171 hours. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms. The information provided on Form N–8B–4 is mandatory. The information provided on Form N–8B–4 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Dated: March 15, 2011. Cathy H. Ahn, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–6363 Filed 3–17–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15002-15003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, 
Washington, DC 20549-0213.
Extension:
    Rule 611; SEC File No. 270-540; OMB Control No. 3235-0600.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval for Rule 611 (17 CFR 242.611)--Order 
Protection Rule.
    On June 9, 2005, effective August 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 37496, June 
29, 2005), the Commission adopted Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et

[[Page 15003]]

seq.) to require any national securities exchange, national securities 
association, alternative trading system, exchange market maker, over-
the-counter market maker and any other broker-dealer that executes 
orders internally by trading as principal or crossing orders as agent, 
to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures 
reasonably designed to prevent the execution of a transaction in its 
market at a price that is inferior to a bid or offer displayed in 
another market at the time of execution (a ``trade-though''), absent an 
applicable exception and, if relying on an exception, that are 
reasonably designed to assure compliance with the terms of the 
exception. Without this collection of information, respondents would 
not have a means to enforce compliance with the Commission's intention 
to prevent trade-throughs pursuant to the rule.
    There are approximately 658 respondents \1\ per year that will 
require an aggregate total of 39,480 hours to comply with this rule.\2\ 
It is anticipated that each respondent will continue to expend 
approximately 60 hours annually: two hours per month of internal legal 
time and three hours per month of internal compliance time to ensure 
that its written policies and procedures are up-to-date and remain in 
compliance with Rule 611. The estimated cost for an in-house attorney 
is $354 per hour and the estimated cost for an assistant compliance 
director in the securities industry is $320 per hour. Therefore the 
estimated total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden is as 
follows: [(2 legal hours x 12 months x $354) x 658] + [(3 compliance 
hours x 12 months x $320) x 658] = $13,170,528.\3\ There are no longer 
start-up costs associated with Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate includes thirteen national securities 
exchanges and one national securities association that trade NMS 
stocks. The estimate also includes the approximately 601 firms that 
were registered equity market makers or specialists at year-end 
2009, as well as 43 alternative trading systems that operate trading 
systems that trade NMS stocks.
    \2\ The one-time hour burden associated with developing the 
required policies and procedures is no longer applicable.
    \3\ The total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden has 
been revised to reflect updated estimated cost figures for an in-
house attorney and an assistant compliance director. These figures 
are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the 
Securities Industry 2010, modified by Commission staff to account 
for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for 
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in 
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No 
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a 
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a 
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or 
send an e-mail to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.

     Dated: March 14, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6313 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P