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: 

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, 

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 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2011 / Notices 15003 

1This 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. 

2The one-time hour burden associated with 

developing the required policies and procedures is 

no longer applicable. 

3The 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. 

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 

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 

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 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES