[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6160-6161]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2668]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66285; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-175]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Strike Price
Intervals for SLV and USO Options

February 1, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On December 7, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``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
regarding strike price intervals for options on iShares[reg] Silver
Trust (``SLV'' or ``SLV Trust'') and United States Oil Fund (``USO'' or
``USO Fund''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 22, 2011.\3\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65986 (December 16,
2011), 76 FR 79748 (December 22, 2011) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The proposed rule change seeks to amend Commentary .05 of Rule 1012
to allow trading of SLV and USO options at $0.50 strike price intervals
where the strike price is less than $75.\4\ The Exchange proposed no
other changes to SLV and USO strike price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange also proposed certain non-substantive changes
to Commentary .06 of Rule 1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that the proposed rule change is designed to
address customer demand to hedge the SLV and USO options in smaller
intervals and would, in part, allow better tailored investment and
hedging opportunities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice at 79749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    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.\6\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be 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 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. The Commission believes that the proposal strikes a
reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to offer a wider array
of strike prices in SLV and USO options while minimizing the
unnecessary proliferation of strike prices in such options. The
Commission expects the Exchange to monitor the trading volume
associated with the additional strike prices listed as a result of this
proposal and the effect of these additional strike prices on market
fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and
vendors' automated systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2011-175) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2668 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 225 (Friday, November 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67325]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0838]

Special Local Regulation; Marine Events Within the Eleventh Coast
Guard District--Mission Bay Parade of Lights

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation on
the waters of Mission Bay, San Diego, California, during the Mission
Bay Parade of Lights on December 11, 2021. This special local
regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants,
crew, sponsor vessels of the boat parade, and general users of the
waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 to Sec.  100.1101,
Item No. 6, will be enforced from 5:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on December
11, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander John
Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 to Sec.  100.1101, Item
No. 6, from 5:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on December 11, 2021, for
Mission Bay Parade of Lights in Mission Bay, San Diego, CA. This action
is being taken to provide for the safety of life on the navigable
waterway during the boat parade. Our regulation for recurring marine
events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, Sec.  100.1101, Table
1 to Sec.  100.1101, Item No. 6, specifies the location of the
regulated area for the Mission Bay Parade of Lights, which encompasses
portions of Mission Bay. Under the provisions of Sec.  100.1101,
persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast
Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: November 19, 2021.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2021-25818 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 11, 2014

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Aileen Roder, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	November 11, 2014 Meeting with John Moore of the Natural Resources Defense Council Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY On November 11, 2014, I met with John Moore of the Natural Resources Defense Council to discuss legal and policy issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I have gone from smoking two plus packs a day (roughly 24mg) to just 3mg. As an ex-smoker for over 25 years I no longer wake up coughing, in fact the only time that I seem to cough now is when my throat is dry. I wish to provide you with more of my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further. All the best, -Patrick


[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13125-13126]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0076]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, ME, Casco Bay

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby establishes three special anchorage
areas in Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay. This action is necessary to
facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure
anchorages for vessels not more than 65 feet in length. This action is
intended to increase the safety of life and property in Yarmouth,
improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall
safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce.

DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket (CGD01-07-009), and are available for inspection or
copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw),
First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Regulatory Information

    On May 24, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Anchorage Regulations; Yarmouth, Maine, Casco Bay''
in the Federal Register (72 FR 29095). We received no letters
commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    This rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by
creating three special anchorage areas in Yarmouth, Maine: (1)
Littlejohn Island/Doyle Point Cousins Island Special Anchorage, (2)
Madeleine and Sandy Point Special Anchorage, and (3) Drinkwater Point
and Princes Point Special Anchorage, creating anchorage for
approximately 350 vessels.
    The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage areas in
accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be
required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are
otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules,
codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035.
    The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage areas contained herein
with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast,
located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments for the NPRM and no changes
were made to this final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the
changing needs of the Town of Yarmouth, the changing needs of
recreational, fishing, and commercial vessels, and makes the best use
of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe
navigation and protection of Yarmouth and the marine environment.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.
    If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact John J. Mauro, at
the address listed in ADDRESSES above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have

determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and will not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.5 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.5  Casco Bay, Maine.

* * * * *
    (f) Yarmouth Harbor and adjacent waters. (1) Anchorage A. All of
the waters enclosed by a line from a point located at the northernmost
point of Littlejohn Island at latitude 43[deg]45'86'' N., longitude
70[deg]06'95'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'78'' N., longitude
70[deg]06'89'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'43'' N., longitude
70[deg]07'38'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]45'28'' N., longitude
70[deg]07'68'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'95'' N., longitude
70[deg]08'45'' W.; thence to latitude 43[deg]44'99'' N., longitude
70[deg]08'50'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.
    (2) Anchorage B. All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point
located Northeast of Birch Point on Cousins Island at latitude
43[deg]45'27'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'32'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'35'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'50'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'63'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'18'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'95'' N., longitude 70[deg]08'98'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'99'' N., longitude 70[deg]08'83'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.
    (3) Anchorage C. All of the waters enclosed by a line from a point
located South of Drinkwater Point in Yarmouth, Maine at latitude
43[deg]46'42'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'25'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]46'35'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'16'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]46'07'' N., longitude 70[deg]09'77'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'48'' N., longitude 70[deg]10'40'' W.; thence to latitude
43[deg]45'65'' N., longitude 70[deg]10'40'' W. DATUM: NAD 83.

    Note to paragraph (f). An ordinance of the Town of Yarmouth,
Maine requires the approval of the Yarmouth Harbor Master for the
location and type of moorings placed in these special anchorage
areas. All anchoring in the areas are under the supervision of the
Yarmouth Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated
by the authorities of the Town of Yarmouth, Maine. All moorings are
to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit
of the anchorage area.

* * * * *

    Dated: February 21, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-4821 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 48876]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17580]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78368; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Definition of
``Block'' for Purposes of Rule 72(d) and the Size of a Proposed Cross
Transaction Eligible for the Cross Function in Rule 76

July 20, 2016.
    On April 12, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') 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 its rules relating to pre-opening
indications and opening procedures. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 29, 2016.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. On May 31,
2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On July
18, 2016, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NYSE-2016-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77701 (Apr. 25,
2016), 81 FR 25748.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77950, 81 FR 36357
(June 6, 2016). The Commission designated July 28, 2016, as the date
by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17580 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                                	November 30, 2021
								  Submitted via 											  www.regulations.gov

White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AO-2021-0683

We would like to express our thanks and appreciation to the members of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council for their efforts to make substantial recommendations to advance initiatives that will promote the achievement of environmental justice.

Despite the urgency of climate change, recent legislation has supported billions of dollars in additional subsidies for nuclear energy- both for existing reactors and new so-called advanced versions. This spending will significantly delay achievement of our climate goals. It could also contribute to nuclear catastrophe.  Major long term funding will be required for new unproven nuclear technologies, significantly hindering the attainment of climate goals and the associated benefits. Investments in renewables and efficiency will deliver clean energy faster and at a fraction of the costs of nuclear, enabling us to easily meet our climate goals faster and avoid the enormous costs from climate damages.

The consequences of not meeting the climate goals mount every year -- millions more acres, homes and businesses burned, thousands of people breathing dangerous levels of fine particulate matter. Then there are the more severe storms and flooding and the damages to cities and towns and rising deaths. Rising storm damage also has the real potential of impacting nuclear reactors, yet little consideration has been given to thorough evaluations of every reactor in the country for possible catastrophic impacts  -  initiated by rising floodwaters, dam failures, and tornados, etc.

Exelon and EDF, Inc. acting separately, have disclosed the harsh truth about Nuclear Power. They are reducing their ownership interests and future involvement with  nuclear reactors. Despite massive subsidies in a variety of forms for approximately 70 years, nuclear power cannot stand on its own economically, in the absence of substantial taxpayer subsidies. Taxpayers can no longer sustain this failing industry.
This overall situation has been expected for some time with Wall Street frowning on the economics of nuclear, despite extraordinary government subsidies that ensured economic gains for investors, while assigning the risks to the public.

Selling the Public on Nuclear Power

"Atoms for Peace" was launched by President Eisenhower in the 1950s as a way of balancing nuclear warfare with a domestic use for nuclear power. The public was promised "electricity too cheap to meter"  -  but this promise was never realized.  Nuclear waste was also said to be an easy problem to solve, so it was given no attention. It now looms as a major threat to our nation. It is clearly not easily solved.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, from the beginning, government subsidies have been directed to every portion of the nuclear fuel cycle with 4 main goals:
 Reducing the cost of capital, labor and land
 Masking the true cost of producing nuclear energy
 Shifting the security and accident risks to the public
 Shifting long-term operating risks (decommissioning & waste management) to the public
The public generally has born the burden of significant subsidies for nuclear, via increased taxes, and higher electric bills. Non- monetary health and safety risks, which pose significant impacts for the public have not received appropriate attention or the necessary budget allocations to provide adequate public safety. Workers regularly receive excess exposures due to inadequate controls at work or untrained or incompetent supervisors.

Waste Legacy Costs borne by the public.

More nuclear reactors are undergoing decommissioning and the magnitude of dangers associated with waste management and whether funds are sufficient for a complete cleanup is of increasing concern for the public. This is also true at many early nuclear waste sites where few protections were put in place. Such legacy waste can impact public spaces and drinking water supplies. The long timeline for decay of some radionuclides means many generations will require adequate protection for many thousands of years. Health impacts across multiple generations are an intergenerational

injustice, where careless radioactive waste handling today can harm many future generations in the future, leaving a legacy of cancer, birth defects and illness. At the West Valley Nuclear Waste site in New York, the site was chosen upstream of Seneca nation territory before any of our major environmental laws were passed. High level wastes are stored there despite the danger that severe erosion will release radioactive waste to the drinking water for millions of people in Buffalo and Western NY.

The US General Accounting Office has identified nuclear wastes as a high risk for the entire nation due to the growth of environmental liabilities.  Environmental monetary liabilities in 2018 ($377 billion) exceeded funding for actual site cleanups ($46.8 billion) by eight times. Inadequate funding for the Dept. of Energy to cleanup sites and isolate dangerous radionuclides means that we are allowing the transfer of nuclear wastes into current and future public health problems. Notably many communities deal with extraordinary inequities associated with past environmental abuses -- yet face new severe threats created by our nuclear agencies- DOE & NRC.

Today we have few waste solutions. We have no plans for a repository and it is clear from the budget allocations alone that we are not adequately managing our waste problems. Some notorious wastes sites have been worked on for decades with no reasonable completion dates in sight, like Hanford and Savannah River. We do have many that threaten nearby communities or water supplies.
Government subsidies have not stabilized the nuclear industry. It is failing.

Unfortunately today government agencies are coming up with new creative forms of regulatory relief that also serve as subsidies for the nuclear industry- but are dangerous to public health.

Under the Trump administration, agencies often lacked managers with adequate education and training appropriate to the tasks.  We experienced worsening deregulation in the nuclear industry at DOE and NRC.

Some examples:
 Spent fuel pools were allowed to increase the density of spent fuel by 2-3 times
      beyond their original design specifications, delaying movement to dry storage and increasing potential catastrophic risks.
 Additional safety standards for these spent fuel pools were recommended following the Fukushima disaster by the National Academy of Sciences, but NRC rejected most of the recommendations, allowing only one.

 High Level Waste was deregulated -- reducing former applicable regulations.
 Greater than Class C waste was proposed for reduced regulation, thus no longer needing a repository. No final decision has been made yet (status not certain).

 High Burnup Fuel needed more comprehensive research according to the US Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in a 2010 report. Rather than arrange the research, NRC has moved forward with higher burnups and enrichment up to just under 20%. In 2016, the NWTRB renewed its request for the needed research on high burnup fuel.

 NRC staff approved a proposed rulemaking for the monitoring of CRUD on fuel rods in the core of reactors to ensure that emergency cooling of the core would not be adversely impacted. Higher burnup fuel creates more CRUD. The Commission rejected the proposal. Since then NRC is allowing reactors to test accident tolerant fuels while also using high burnup fuels in the reactors.

 Fuel enrichment to provide higher burnups requires enrichment facilities that use Uranium Hexafluoride or UF-6. This compound has significant global warming potential- 23,900 times that of carbon dioxide, and little that removes or destroys it once released. Current enrichment is approximately at 5%. Enriching to almost 20% will require four times as much UF-6.  UF-6 is also hazardous to humans from manufacturing and transportation releases.

 Remote transfer systems (RTSs) to transfer leaking containers of spent nuclear fuel were adopted by NRC as requirements in 2014, but abandoned for planned Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities. The plan is to Return to Sender even if that requires thousands of miles with a radioactive leak. Remote handling is required for worker protection from highly radioactive emissions associated with a leak.

 Extending reactor licenses far beyond their original design life to 80 or 100 years is another new plan being implemented in the absence of adequate scientific and environmental review. Coupled with this there will be no testing of metal samples in the reactor core to ensure the pressure vessel will not experience sudden shattering during emergency cooling. This sample testing was a previous requirement.
Such extensive deregulation related to nuclear reactors and waste exacerbates the potential risks associated with climate change and should be given concentrated attention and regulation to prevent catastrophe.

Note: This is not intended to be a complete list. To our knowledge no federal agency has estimated the value of these deregulatory subsidies for this industry.

Our Comments are below in Bold related to some items.

WHEJAC Final Report Executive Order 14008 p. 59

EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT WILL NOT BENEFIT A COMMUNITY .......

1. Fossil fuel procurement, development, infrastructure repair that would in any way extend lifespan or production capacity, transmission system investments to facilitate fossil-fired generation or any related subsidy.

2. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).
This technology has been promoted for several years with little technical progress and likelihood of achieving success with long term storage, despite its high cost.

3. Direct air capture

4. The procurement of nuclear power

Nuclear Power as a technology is a long term economic failure  -  much of it is hidden from the public because taxpayers have been forced to pay long term subsidies to the nuclear industry, continuously from its inception. Today nuclear power offers no economic benefits. Renewable energy and efficiency are cheaper, and more quickly implemented -- essential to the urgent need to address climate change.

Item #13 below.  Abandonment of Radioactive Waste
Despite the billions in subsidies, massive taxpayer bills loom in the future related to the failure to handle the long term safe management of nuclear waste in a permanent repository. The US GAO recently cautioned that this bill may ultimately be paid by taxpayers. ( GAO-21-603, Sept. 2021) As of Sept. 2020, the Nuclear Waste Fund Balance was almost $43 billion with interest accrued over the last ten years of $1.4 billion per year.  The possible costs estimated for 2117- $83 billion to $127 billion. According to GAO, if nuclear waste fees remain at zero and if the funds are not adequate to cover repository costs, the American taxpayer may ultimately pay the additional costs.( p.32-33)

GAO also declared that the environmental liabilities associated with nuclear waste are high risk for the nation and are not adequately funded. Hundreds of sites currently pose health and safety risks to communities, their water, air and environments. Many radionuclides are highly toxic and long-lived, causing cancer and birth defects and other harms.  The public is jeopardized by potential catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Three-mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. In addition environmental contamination associated with nuclear waste can cause health damage for many future generations. This represents severe Inter-generational Injustice. We know of two areas impacted by wildfires containing nuclear waste that burned spreading contamination -  Santa Susanah Field Lab in California and the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico.

A small area of the Southwest has been targeted for enormous quantities of high level spent nuclear fuel storage or consolidated interim storage in New Mexico and nearby in Texas. This is an environmental justice community of Native Americans and Hispanic Americans. These large facilities will be visible by air and vulnerable to a terror attack. This area is a prime oil and gas drilling region- the Permian basin. Nearby WIPP, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, continues to store transuranic waste underground in a salt repository, despite the serious accident in 2014 that released plutonium, contaminating workers.
Historically this area was subjected to Trinity nuclear bomb testing. Uranium mining has also resulted in extensive contamination at multiple sites that has not been remediated. The Ogallala aquifer that serves multiple states could be impacted by the plans for consolidated storage of hi level spent nuclear fuel.

5. Research and development
6. The establishment or advancement of carbon markets, including cap and trade
7. Geoengineering and techno fixes
8. Highway expansion
9. Road improvements or automobile infra-structure, other than electric vehicle charging stations
10. Industrial scale bioenergy
11. Incentives for investor-owned utilities
12. Projects that promote gentrification without any housing policy crafted by a community to prevent displacement
13. Incineration, waste-to-energy or biomass incineration, and landfilling (Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus Transport and Abandonment of Radioactive Waste)
14. Pipeline creation, expansion, or maintenance
15. Memo to the Biden administration: What not to do on climate
16. The Conversation: Climate Scientists: Concept of Net Zero Is A Dangerous Trap
17. NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program: Fossil Fueled Foolery

WHEJAC Final Report Executive Order 14008 p. 19

Current Program / Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority Recommendation: As the nation's largest public power provider, Tennessee Valley Authority should lead by example by implementing a transition to clean energy well ahead of the President's industry-wide target of 2035, as well as by ensuring the large population of disadvantaged communities in their territory receive the benefits of this transition. Specific actions the administration should take include calling on TVA to set an ambitious goal of transitioning to clean energy by 2030 in its next integrated resource plan, creating a specific carve out for TVA in federal Clean Energy Standards, and prioritizing the rapid and safe cleanup of coal ash contaminated sites across its territory.
Our Recommendations: The TVA has invested heavily in nuclear and fossil fuels. It has failed to responsibly invest in energy efficiency and renewables as many utilities across the country have. The other TVA priority should be to address climate change risks- such as flooding and storms- to existing facilities such as nuclear reactors and dams. TVA should not be permitted to invest in any new nuclear projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the extensive work of the Advisory Council.

Sincerely,

Barbara Warren RN, MS
Executive Director

								kwm-h34a-qnot
								Comment tracking number


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80551-80553]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32086]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63551; File No. SR-CME-2010-01]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Rules Governing
Contract Specifications for Physically Delivered Single Security
Futures

December 15, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 7, 2010, Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change 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. CME also has filed this proposed rule change
concurrently with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').
CME filed a written certification with the CFTC under Section 5c(c) of
the Commodity Exchange Act on November 24, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of the Proposed Rule
Change

    CME proposes to amend its Rules governing the trade of physically
delivered single security futures. Specifically, the Exchange intends
to delist futures on three (3) Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs),
specifically the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock\SM\ (``QQQQ''), Standard &
Poor's Depositary Receipts[supreg] (``SPDR'') and iShares Russell 2000
(``IWM'').
    The text of the proposed rule changed [sic] is as follows (brackets
indicate words to be deleted; italics indicate words to be added):

CHAPTER 710: PHYSICALLY DELIVERED SINGLE SECURITY FUTURES 71004.
APPROVED SECURITIES

    The following securities have been approved by the Board of
Directors as the subject of Physically Delivered Single Security
Futures Contracts:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Position limit in
          Approved security                  Unit of trading          Minimum fluctuation   expiring contract in
                                                                                last 5 trading days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock\SM\        [200 Shares]................  [$0.01 or $2.00 per                 [11,250]
 (``QQQQ'')].                                                        contract].
[Standard & Poor's Depositary         [100 Shares]................  [$0.01 or $1.00 per                 [22,500]
 Receipts[supreg] (``SPDR'')].                                       contract].
[iShares Russell 2000 (``IWM'')]....  [200 Shares]................  [$0.01 or $2.00 per                 [11,250]
                                                                     contract].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    CME intends to delist futures on three (3) Exchange Traded Funds
(ETFs), specifically the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock\SM\ (``QQQQ''),
Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts[supreg] (``SPDR'') and iShares
Russell 2000 (``IWM''), because trading activity has been de minimis in
these products as illustrated below.

                          Average Daily Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Jan-Oct 2010          2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock\SM\                        1                 1
 (``QQQQ'').........................
Standard & Poor's Depositary                         4                 7
 Receipts[supreg] (``SPDR'')........
iShares Russell 2000 (``IWM'')......                 0                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    CME believes that the proposed delistings are consistent with
Section 6 of the Act.\2\ CME believes the rule changes are 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, because the proposed rule change merely
delists products that have had a de minimus amount of historical
trading activity on CME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CME does not believe that the proposed action will have an impact
on competition because the proposed rule change merely delists products
that have had a de minimus amount of historical trading activity on
CME.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Comments on the proposed rule change have not been solicited.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed rule change has become effective on December 7, 2010.
However, CME intends to implement this delisting in such a way as to
avoid impacting any current positions in these markets. Accordingly,
CME will not delist any contract months while there are open positions.
Rather, CME will simply refrain from listing any new contracts. To the
extent that open interest declines to zero in any contract month listed
subsequent to December 7, 2010, CME shall retire that contract month.
Note that, as of Friday, November 12, 2010, there were a total of 14
open positions in the SPDR contract with 5 open contracts in December
2010 and 9 open contracts in January 2011. There was a total of 9 open
positions in the QQQQ contract, all held in the December 2010 contract.
Finally, there were zero (0) open positions held in the IWN [sic]
contract.
    Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule
change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily
abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule
change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CME-2010-01 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-CME-2010-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.\4\ 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-CME-2010-01 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32086 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13572-13573]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04841]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0172]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0103

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0103,
Mandatory Ship Reporting System for Northeast and Southeast Coasts of
the United States; without change.
    Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the
public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting
comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0172] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0172], and
must be received by May 10, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and
Southeast Coasts of the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0103.
    Summary: The information is needed to reduce the number of ship
collisions with endangered northern right whales. Coast Guard rules at
33 CFR part 169 establish two mandatory ship-reporting systems off the
northeast and southeast coasts of the United States.
    Need: The collection involves ships' reporting by radio to a shore-
based authority when entering the area covered by the reporting system.
The ship will receive, in return, information to reduce the likelihood
of collisions between themselves and northern right whales--an
endangered species-in the areas established with critical-habitat
designation.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 137 hours a
year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: March 3, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-04841 Filed 3-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13946-13947]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05982]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Reports of Evidence of Material Violations. SEC File No. 270-
514, OMB Control No. 3235-0572.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501-3520, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit the existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    On February 6, 2003, the Commission published final rules,
effective August 5, 2003, entitled ``Standards of Professional Conduct
for Attorneys Appearing and Practicing Before the Commission in the
Representation of an Issuer'' (17 CFR 205.1-205.7). The information
collection embedded in the rules is necessary to implement the
Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys prescribed by the rule
and required by Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15
U.S.C. 7245). The rules impose an ``up-the-ladder'' reporting
requirement when attorneys appearing and practicing before the
Commission become aware of evidence of a material violation by the
issuer or any officer, director, employee, or agent of the issuer. An
issuer may choose to establish a qualified legal compliance committee
(``QLCC'') as an alternative procedure for reporting evidence of a
material violation. In the rare cases in which a majority of a QLCC has
concluded that an issuer did not act appropriately, the QLCC may
communicate that information to the Commission. The collection of
information is, therefore, an important component of the Commission's
program to discourage violations of the federal securities laws and
promote ethical behavior of attorneys appearing and practicing before
the Commission.
    The respondents to this collection of information are attorneys who
appear and practice before the Commission and, in certain cases, the
issuer, and/or officers, directors and committees of the issuer. In
providing quality representation to issuers, attorneys may report
evidence of violations to others within the issuer, including the Chief
Legal Officer, the Chief Executive Officer, and, where necessary, the
directors. In addition, officers and directors investigate evidence of
violations and report within the issuer the results of the
investigation and the remedial steps they have taken or sanctions they
have imposed. Except as discussed below, we believe that the reporting
requirements imposed by the rule are ``usual and customary'' activities
that do not add to the burden that would be imposed by the collection
of information.
    Certain aspects of the collection of information, however, may
impose a burden. For an issuer to establish a QLCC, the QLCC must adopt
written procedures for the confidential receipt, retention, and
consideration of any report of evidence of a material violation. We
estimate for purposes of the PRA that there are approximately 11,396
issuers that are subject to the rules.\1\ Of these, we estimate that
approximately 3.3 percent, or 373, have established or will establish a
QLCC.\2\ Establishing the written procedures required by the rule
should not impose a significant burden. We assume that an issuer would
incur a greater burden in the year that it first establishes the
procedures than in subsequent years, in which the burden would be
incurred in updating, reviewing, or modifying the procedures. For
purposes of the PRA, we assume that an issuer would spend 6 hours every
three-year period on the procedures. This would result in an average
burden of 2 hours per year. Thus, we estimate for purposes of the PRA
that the total annual burden imposed by the collection of information
would be 746 hours. Assuming half of the burden hours will be incurred
by outside counsel at a rate of $500 per hour would result in a cost of
$186,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure is based on the estimated 8,145 operating
companies that filed annual reports on Form 10-K, Form 20-F, or Form
40-F during the 2013 fiscal year (the most recent data currently
available), and the estimated 3,251 investment companies that filed
periodic reports on Form N-SAR between June 1, 2013 and May 31, 2014
(the most recent data currently available).
    \2\ This estimate is based on the issuer-filings made with the
Commission during the past three years that include a reference to
the issuer's QLCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. 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 requested on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden[s]
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.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed: (i) to Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549 or by sending an
email to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05982 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32042]
[DOCID:fr05jn08-75]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1760-DR]

Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1760-DR), dated May 23, 2008,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 23, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Missouri resulting from severe storms and tornadoes during the
period of May 10-11, 2008, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206
(the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Missouri.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later
warranted, Federal funds provided under that program also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except for any
particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal cost-
sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot Program
instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Karl, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Barry, Jasper, and Newton Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Missouri are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-12525 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40878]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16942]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9698-9]

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of
Past Response Costs Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, As Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative
settlement agreement for recovery of past response costs (``Proposed
Agreement'') associated with the Browning Lumber Company Superfund
Site, Boone County, West Virginia was executed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') and is now subject to public comment. The
Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA
$1,280,000.00 for past response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The Proposed Agreement and additional background information
relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be
obtained from Robert S. Hasson (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    Comments should reference the ``Browning Lumber Company Superfund
Site, Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past
Response Costs'' and ``EPA Docket No. CERCLA-03-2012-0062DC,'' and
should be forwarded to Robert S. Hasson at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert S. Hasson (3RC41), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement
agreement for recovery of past response costs (``Proposed Agreement'')
associated with the Browning Lumber Company Superfund Site, Boone
County, West Virginia was executed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (``EPA'') and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA
may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts
or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would
resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (``Settling Party''). The Proposed Agreement
would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $1,280,000.00 for past
response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed
Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    Dated: June 29, 2012.
Ronald Borsellino,
Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-16942 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P