operational robustness, Roche agrees with the ABC's
position on this and that is -- frankly, when we talk to
our sites, they don't want to do a semi-automated slash
manual system for single unit testing.  It's been
traumatic enough getting to where we are, so we think
that high volume automation is required and we have been
looking at high volume automation.  In fact, at ABB we
had one system that we placed into Japan and that has
automated sample preparation instrumentation as well as
a three virus Multiplex capability using homogeneous
PCRs, the detection comes from.
I think on our side, our PCR products,
we've been in the PCR business for a long time and so
far we feel quite good about the performance of these
products, the low fail run rates and the low false
positive rates and in the minipool NAT clinical trials,
I think I would agree, someone said that the real
success here is that we went to minipool testing because
there was a need and this need was met by minipool NAT
testing.
Next slide.  And from our perspective, you
know, having this experience now behind us is that the
system that we've developed has accommodated 13 sites in
the U.S. and five sites in Canada and we've tested over

251
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
two million samples at these sites in both large and
small blood banks and so the bottom line, the feedback
that we get from these sites is that okay, we've got
this working and I think the real heros in this are the
technicians who are doing this because there was a
significant learning curve to get to where we are today.
And the fact is from the data that was
presented today is that we have successfully interdicted
numerous window cases with this PCR product and
therefore this is the reason we're doing this is to
prevent transfusion associated with infection.
Next slide.  With regards to the
manufacturer providing dependable manufacturing, we've
had over 2,000 of the COBAS Amplicor and analyzers now
placed in the field and in our system I'd say that that
is an instrument that illustrates the dependability of
the instrument side of going forward with any kind of
further automation.
And on the kit reagent side, we just kind
of passed a milestone.  We're now making over 800,000
kits, PCR kits per year.  So the conclusion here that I
want to leave you with in this section is that Roche has
the experience to move forward to single unit testing.
Okay, next slide.  But there's the dark

252
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
side to all of this and that is there has to be
sufficient business potential to warrant the
development.  So the bullet points are, due to the
uncertainty of the ABC Patent situation, Roche will not
further invest in automation.  Therefore, we have no
plans to develop products for single unit testing.
Secondly, Chiron has elected not to license
HCV NAT for blood screening to any company other than
the Chiron Gen-Probe alliance.
Having said that I want to assure our
current customers that we intend to go full steam ahead
with our on-going clinical trials for the COBAS Amplicor
system, as well as the Japanese Red Cross trial which
has this Multiplex, more automated system than we have
in trials right now.  We will continue those trials and
we will continue to submit for regulatory review.
Finally, we will have full intention to
support our customers without any change.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
DR. TABOR:  Before you leave the podium,
Mike, I can't resist asking for some clarification.  How
are you going to support your customers by not investing
and not initiating new research?

253
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
DR. GALLARDA:  That's a good question.  I
would say that the answer is that a year and a half ago
we were asked by the customers to get into this business
and the understanding was at that time we were going
forward with minipool testing.  That was the paradigm
and that's what we were going forward with.  I think
that has demonstrated an effectiveness that everyone --
I think all the blood centers should be proud of.
We expect that those products are going to
be licensable.  We're going to file for licensure and
then there will be the need to support those products
and so that's what I mean by continuing to support the
customers with a minipool NAT system that we have.
DR. TABOR:  Thank you.  Those are some
really difficult ancillary problems that maybe we can go
over in the group discussion and they probably don't
only apply to Roche.
The next speaker is Dr. Klaus-Heinrich
Heerman from the University of Gottingen.
Dr. Heerman.
DR. HEERMAN:  First, I want to thank the
organizers for inviting me to this lecture.  Ladies and
gentlemen, you have heard today and the last time NAT is
very sensitive, especially if performed in a single

254
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
test.  Therefore, the handling of this technique and
fundamental extraction steps are susceptible to cross
contamination.  The surface area, the surface tension of
the liquid is the only cover against the template cross
over.  And therefore easy and safe extraction methods
are required in the same way only less expensive methods
are qualified for high throughput testing especially in
blood bank facilities.
First slide, please.  I've developed an
easy way to extract template RNA.  After sample
distribution of the plasma, the template was extracted
by protease and a further step, the protease was
denatured by heat and in a dilution step we get some
streptomycin coated particles to capture the first
primer for hybridization which takes the template.
After several washings in a special magnetic rack, the
template can be amplified or put in to the reverse
transcription method.  Finally, there is an easy
extracted, easy detection by fluocin dye.
Next slide, please.  In cooperation with
Tobias Lateler and  Michel Kohler from the Department of
Transfusion Medicine, the test was adapted to modify
pipetting work station and starting with microplated
tubes and using microplates in all subsequent steps,

255
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
each donation is linked to its individual HCV RNA
result.  Thus, a simple data file is transmitted to a
sample blood bank software where all data of one
donation are collected in addition to other several
particular results.
For this way we have to develop
some additional features.
Next slide.  We could use a simple magnetic
rack.
Next slide.  On the bottom of microplate
rack was fixed some magnetic stripes in longitudinal
direction and there are -- next slide.
There are further disposals, a special
waste disposal were introduced to the robot and for
removal of the used disposal tips they -- we want not
throw away these tips through the air.  We train the
robot to put the disposals back down in the rack again
which was third from bottom with liquid, for instance,
the diluted hypochlorite.
Next slide, please.  This system of primers
was used.  If there were a peer contamination problem of
the amplicons we are able to start a placement PCR with
a primer set for HCV 4.  Because these primers do not
detect the small template of everyday performance at
3.0.

256
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Next slide, please.  It's very difficult to
characterize the primer qualities.  The PCR should not
be otherwise affected by point mutations of the
template.  Here, you will see the amount of an alignment
of up to 400 NCR sequences and I show you the
deviations, the point mutations in the definite
positions.  We have changed all primers.
Next slide, please.  We use safety primers
and these primers have fixed -- we always use three or
four primers.  The primers have fixed five flesh ends or
the same five flesh ends and they vary at three flesh
ends.
Next slide, please.  Here, I show you the
limiting dilution curves of different forms of HEAD.
Next slide, please.  The HEAD or extraction
amplification detection is very sensitive.  In the
middle, there is 160 international units per mL.  We
only use 50 microliters for tests with eight
international units for a test and this 32 genome
equivalence.
Next slide, please.  And the blood banks
don't get very much, only a few positive specimens and
therefore we use 201 specimens of our diagnostic lab to
test the system and of this 201 we detect 196.  Only

257
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
five we don't detect and therefore we have -- it looked
for the titer of the specimen and the only footnote
which the very diluted specimen, of this specimen, one
cannot be retested from the in-house positive and
pharmapositive assay.  Two further could not -- reached
from the Roche system and one of these five samples were
from pathologic labs.
Next slide, please.  On seven different
days, testing of six replicates of two dilution series
with different lots of reagents were performed and here
are the results.  The middle and the extreme -- and in
addition of several individuals or possible individuals
of TB test this, too, and with only minor infections.
Next slide, please.  These are the results
of a long time study of up to 28,000 donations.  In the
window period we found two positive donations and five
donations have already antibodies and the drawback we
have are these false positive results left.  This is 1
in 2,000 reactions and if we perform other tests in the
unit it's increasing three to 1,000 tests and therefore
-- next slide, please.
We identify the major problem of our liquid
handling of the robot and the pipetting tips have very
small outlets, therefore the speed of the liquid is very

258
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
high if you inject it.
Next slide, please.  Therefore, the future
invention is to use magnetic tip and this is the shape
of these different devices.  This is a hepa tip and this
is magnetic tip and you take it into the surface of the
liquid and on this side you don't inject liquids.
Next slide, please.  With the same
chemistry we could have found the extraction by covering
the magnetic tip and collect the beads in the solution
by putting down the stick into the liquid and then you
can wash easy with some additional wires with the stick
and you put the beads into the solution for RT or TCR.
Next slide, please.  These are the
advantages of this system.  There are variable specimen
volumes up to more than 10 milliliters.  There is an
easier reduction of the template volume.  You can leave
the beads in 25 microliters.  There are easy washing
steps and the exchange of buffer is easy too.  There are
no pipetting steps and this is really more laminar
procedure and the handling is more slower.  With this
system, you perform additional pools, but in another way
you can pool after in the middle of the denaturation and
have it capture individual probes and this is a major
point.  You have less plastic waste and the cost of our

259
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
system is about 4.5 dollars and if we lose many tips for
washing, we are at about 2.5 dollars.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
DR. TABOR:  Thank you very much.  Our final
speaker is Dr. Jean-Pierre Allain from the University of
Cambridge, England.
DR. ALLAIN:  Thank you, good afternoon.
I'm first of all thankful to the organizers inviting me
to share with you the data on the single dilution
testing using TNA for the detection of HVC and HIV RNA.
We are in the process of doing two studies,
one of them is targeting first time donors in the
Southeast of England which is essentially looking into
HCV RNA detection and the second is done in
collaboration with the blood center in Durban, South
Africa because of -- and directed to what they call high
risk blood donors, essentially directed to HIV.  So I'm
going to update you quickly on both of these studies.
Could I have the first one, please.  This
is the study design of the U.K. study where we start
with whole blood donation and as you can see here it's
done in parallel with the antibody EIA testing so these
samples we are testing in the study is -- are not

260
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
prescreened for serology.  The objective of the study is
three things, first of all, to assess the visibility and
performance of TMA in testing individual donation.  The
second is to look at the clinical efficacy of the test
and the third to compare with the currently on-going
pool testing.  So as I mentioned we are targeting
essentially first time donations, although the pool
testing with 96 member pools is looking at the entire
population of blood donors first time and with repeat
donors.
So basically the TECAN is preparing the
pool, but also taking one in an archive and then what is
left in the tubes is sent to us for TMA testing and then
we on the second day have an initial result and then
confirmation on day 3.  However, our results are not
taken into consideration of the moment, but for clinical
distribution of the products.
Next one, please.  So first we looked at
the performance of the assay in terms of sensitivity and
I'm not going to dwell on it because this has been
presented previously.  The only thing I would mention is
that the sensitivity is very high, in some ways too high
because we have difficulties by using rTPCR too much
sensitivity for both HCV and HIV.

261
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
Next one, please.  Just another rendition
of what Sheryl showed about the timberline of testing.
We have actually two technicians working on the project
and, basically, it's comfortable for each and you can
see here the various steps of the technique to do two
runs of 100 tubes.  However, we have tried to do three
and it's quite feasible within six hours except that
there is no time for lunch, but it is quite feasible.
(Laughter.)
The next one, please.  So basically, at the
moment and this is as of last Friday, we have run 304
runs of 100 tubes.  Two hundred seventy seven or 91
percent we've added drugs.  We were a little bit
concerned as has been presented previously by other
speakers of the relatively high member of invalid runs
and in particular out of these 27 or nine percent we had
22 cases of failure of the calibrators and this was a
concern to us.  However, we had in some cases, as you
would expect, in the learning curve, identified human
errors and also some technical problems.
Next one, please.  This is a little bit
complicated but it basically tells you all of our
results.  Here, you have the actual run, so each
individual is 100 tube run, each of the dots here.  You

262
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
have in red, the round dots, the invalids and the
triangle of the initial reactor and then that's the open
and the closed represents the repeat when needed.  In
addition, I put here the invalid runs shown here and
this is the actual number of these various results.  You
can see at a glance that we had essentially two periods
of problems.  One here, essentially which was initial
reactive, none of them repeating and another one here
which was both the initial reactive and invalid and as
you can see, this corresponded also to a bad period of
invalid runs.  We have identified the reason for these
here which was, it was in the middle of the summer,
believe it or not, it was too hot in England for the
selection process and now with the air conditioning
running we eliminated that problem.  Here, it was more
complicated than it was, in fact, a combination of
problems with instrumentation and in particular the
washing system, and at some point the luminometer, but
also kind of not quite strict enough adherence to the
manufacturer's protocol.  So the false were shared so to
speak.
But except for these two periods, if you
look when everything works well, as you can see the
number of invalid runs is infrequent.  We have very few

263
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
invalids and very few initial reactors.
And this is translated here in numbers.
Out of nearly 26,000 individual first time donations we
have screened, we have 1.23 percent invalids, excluding
the invalid runs, which all repeat, were obviously no
problem.  The initially reactive were 0.48 percent, but
as you can see here most of them were located in these
two critical and difficult periods, but you can see that
on repeat we had only three so-called false positives.
In other words, none confirmed samples that were
repeatably reactive and of note is that these three were
during the period of problems with all the invalid runs.
So as you can see here, 17 of these 20 were confirmed
and the details are shown in the next overhead.
And these are the 17.  As you can see in
black, most of them were HCV as you would expect; one
HIV and all of them were also seropositive and all of
them were confirmed either by our in-house HIV or HCV
confirmation.  And the overall prevalence for HCV was 1
in 1700 donations which is exactly what we predicted
from the epidemiology.
Next one, please.  If we look at the -- now
we compared that to the overall data as far as antibody
was concerned, confirmed positive NTHCD.  There were 24

264
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
during that period, but because we were doing the
screening only four days a week, we tested, in fact, 14
and 11 were TMA positive, three negative which is
basically corresponding to the 85 percent chronic
infection as we would expect.
Next one.  Okay, just quickly -- so that's
for the U.K. study in first time donors.  Now the South
African design is different for several reasons.  One of
them is that they are testing for NTP p24 antigen.  The
other is because of the prevalence of HIV and to some
extent, HCV we did it post-serology except for p24.  So
basically what has been done is that the p24 positive
antibody negative were included in the study to see
whether we could replace eventually p24 by TMA and also
the negative.  So on one hand, those were tested
individually.  Also, on site in Durban, they were put in
pools of 24 and we tested both pools and individual
samples.
Next one.  So this is just a quick summary
of the results.  We've tested 1800 samples.  We have .03
percent invalid.  Initially reactive, we have 2.23
percent, repeat reactive 141 and confirmed positive, 26.
As you can see here most of the confirmed positive were
HIV antibody positive which were deliberately put into

265
S A G  CORP.S A G  CORP.
202/797-2525
Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202/797-2525
the system by our South African colleagues as positive
control and four of them were positive, but also were
positive by p24.  We haven't found at this point what
we're actually looking for which is anti-HIV negative,
p24 negative TMA HIV RNA positive.
Last one, please.  So the question has been
raised already how the feasibility of single donation
and I've done some calculation as far as England is
concerned.  Out of 2.2 million donations per year, 85
percent being repeat donation and 15 percent being first
time.  So if we do it by all individual testing for
repeat donation, that would require either 31, if it was
a 3 run technician or 46 individuals which in the
current situation in England seem a terribly high number
of people, but if it's done by a pool of 16, then it
takes either seven or ten individuals to do the testing.
In first-time donations, if you do
individual, two or three individual can test all the


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25803-25804]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11618]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0209; FRL-9994-89-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is given of a proposed consent
decree in Citizens for Clean Air, et al. v. Andrew Wheeler, et al., No.
2:18-cv-01803-TSZ (W.D. Wa.). On December 18, 2018, Citizens for Clean
Air, a project of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, and Sierra Club
(``Plaintiffs'') filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, alleging that the Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Regional
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
(``EPA'') failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to determine
whether the State of Alaska has made an administratively complete state
implementation plan (``SIP'') submission. The SIP submission at issue
is required to meet the Serious nonattainment area plan requirements
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Fairbanks North
Star Borough area. The proposed consent decree would establish a
deadline for EPA to determine whether the State of Alaska has made the
required SIP submission.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by July 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2019-0209, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    EPA designated the Fairbanks North Star Borough area as
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on December
14, 2009. EPA initially classified the area as a ``Moderate''
nonattainment area, but later reclassified the area to ``Serious,''
effective June 9, 2017. Accordingly, the State of Alaska is required to
make a new SIP submission to meet applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements for a Serious area nonattainment area plan for this area.
    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiffs seeking to compel the EPA to take action under Clean Air Act
section 110(k)(1)(B) to determine whether the State of Alaska has made
an administratively complete SIP submission intended to meet the
Serious nonattainment area plan requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Fairbanks North Star Borough area.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA shall sign a
notice of final rulemaking making the required completeness
determination no later than July 8, 2019. Thereafter, the EPA shall,
within 15 business days, send the signed notice of final rulemaking
making the completeness determination to the Office of Federal Register
for review and publication.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0209) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search.''
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: May 23, 2019.
Gautam Srinivasan,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-11618 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 55574]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19737]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2000-7257, Notice No. 89]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the sixtieth meeting of the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC), a Federal Advisory Committee that develops
railroad safety regulations through a consensus process.

DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 1, 2020. The
meeting will commence at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn by 11:30 a.m. (all
times Eastern Daylight Time). Requests to attend the meeting must be
received by September 24, 2020. Requests for accommodations because of
a disability must be received by September 21, 2020. Requests to submit
written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no
later than September 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held telephonically. Telephonic
attendance information will be provided upon registration with either
of the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Copies of the meeting minutes, along with general information
about the committee, are available on the RSAC internet website at
https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/ .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated
Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202)
493-6286 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Larry Woolverton, Executive
Officer, FRA Office of Railroad Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any committee-related request should be sent
to the persons listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a
meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC is composed of 40 voting representatives
from 29 member organizations, representing various rail industry
perspectives. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite
range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its
responsibilities.
    Public Participation: The meeting will open to the public and
attendance may be limited due to telephonic meeting constraints. To
register, please send an email to either of the individuals listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The meeting is accessible
to individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation
and the Federal Railroad Administration are committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact
either of the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section by the deadline listed in the DATES section. Any member of the
public may submit a written statement to the committee at any time. If
a member of the public wants the submitted written materials to be
considered by the committee during the meeting, the submission must be
received before the deadline listed in the DATES section.
    Agenda Summary: The RSAC meeting topics will include updates on
recent activity by RSAC Working Groups for: Passenger Safety, Track
Standards, Tourist and Historic Railroads, and Part 225 Accident
Reporting. The detailed agenda will be posted on the RSAC internet
website at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Quintin Kendall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-19737 Filed 9-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 11, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST 2003-14649

 _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V.
           Date Filed: April 22, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled, combination services between the three
Mexican coterminal points Mexico City/Guadalajara/Morilia, and the U.S.
terminal point Portland, Oregon.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 5, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>      DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  May 11, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 11, 2004, through May 11,
2005.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: February 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 7352-7354]
[DOCID:fr07fe08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57253; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to an Options Floor Broker Subsidy Program

February 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 29, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. Phlx has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Phlx under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Phlx proposes to: (1) Adopt a tiered per contract floor broker
options subsidy payable to member organizations with Exchange
registered floor brokers for eligible contracts (as defined below) that
are entered into the Exchange's Floor Broker Management System
(''FBMS'') \5\ and subsequently executed on the Exchange,\6\ subject to
two threshold volume requirements; and (2) delete the current floor
brokerage assessment that is set forth on the Exchange's fee schedule
in several places, specifically the Summary of Equity Option and RUT
and RMN Charges, the Summary of Index Option Charges, the Summary of
U.S. Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Option Charges, and the Summary of
Physical Delivery Currency Option Charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange states that FBMS is designed to enable floor
brokers and/or their employees to enter, route, and report
transactions stemming from options orders received on the Exchange.
FBMS also is designed to establish an electronic audit trail for
options orders represented and executed by floor brokers on the
Exchange. See Exchange Rule 1080, commentary .06.
    \6\ Thus, outbound Linkage transactions, which are therefore not
executed on the Exchange, are excluded from threshold calculations
and subsidy payments, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange intends to implement the subsidy
and delete the floor brokerage assessment beginning with transactions
settling on or after February 1, 2008.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements

concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Phlx 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
    The details of the tiered per contract floor broker subsidy program
are set forth below.
Threshold Calculations
    To qualify for the per contract subsidy, a member organization with
Exchange registered floor brokers must have: (1) More than an average
of 75,000 executed contracts per day in the applicable month; and (2)
at least 40,000 executed contracts or more per day for at least eight
trading days during that same month.\7\ Only the floor broker volume
from orders entered into FBMS and subsequently executed would be
counted. The 75,000 contract and 40,000 contract thresholds, as
described above, would be calculated per member organization floor
brokerage unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For purposes of calculating the 75,000 and 40,000
thresholds, customer-to-customer transactions, customer-to-non-
customer transactions, and non-customer-to-non-customer transactions
would be included. Currently, the Exchange states that it does not
charge an options comparison or transaction charge for customer
transactions as set forth on the Exchange's Summary of Equity Option
and RUT and RMN Charges. The Exchange, however, does charge for
certain customer transactions as set forth on the Exchange's Summary
of Index Option Charges and the Summary of U.S. Dollar-Settled
Foreign Currency Option Charges. The Exchange believes that allowing
customer transactions to be included in the threshold calculations
should help to encourage floor brokers to send more order flow to
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that two or more member organizations with Exchange
registered floor brokers each entered one side of a transaction into
FBMS, then the executed contracts would be divided among each
qualifying member organization that participates in that
transaction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Set forth below are several examples to illustrate the
threshold volume calculations: (1) If one floor broker enters both
sides of a transaction for 1,000 contracts, that floor broker would
get 1,000 contracts credited towards its threshold volume; (2) in a
1,000 contract trade where each side was entered by a different
member organization with Exchange registered floor brokers, each
such member organization would receive 500 contracts credited
towards their respective threshold volumes; (3) if one floor broker
enters an order for 900 contracts to sell and three separate floor
brokers enter the contra side to each buy 300 contracts, the floor
broker that entered the 900 contracts to sell would receive 450
contracts towards its threshold calculation and each floor broker on
the contra side would receive 150 contracts credited towards their
respective threshold calculations; and (4) if a floor broker enters
an order to sell 900 contracts and two separate floor brokers each
enter orders to buy 300 contracts and a registered options trader
(``ROT'') bought the remaining 300 contracts, the floor broker that
entered the 900 contracts would get 600 contracts towards its
threshold (150 from each floor broker and 300 from the ROT (the
entering floor broker that executed against the ROT receives credit
for both sides of the transaction with the ROT (i.e., 300 contracts)
because the subsidy is only available to floor brokers and,
therefore, the ROT is not eligible to receive credit towards the
subsidy)), and the two separate floor brokers would get 150 each to
add up to the total 900 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eligible Contracts
    To be eligible for the per contract subsidy, an order must be
entered through the Exchange's FBMS and subsequently executed on the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Therefore, orders entered through FBMS, but executed away
through Linkage would not count towards the 75,000 contract or the
40,000 contract thresholds. However, if an inbound Linkage order is
received and is executed against an order that was entered through
FBMS, the order that was entered through FBMS would count towards
the threshold amount and per contract subsidy, if applicable, for
the member organization that entered that order because that
transaction was executed on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously stated, customer-to-customer transactions would count
towards reaching the 75,000 contract and 40,000 contract thresholds,
but a per contract subsidy would not be paid on any customer-to-
customer transactions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Customer transactions are identified by the letter ``c'' in
the Exchange's trading systems. For purposes of this proposal,
customer transactions would exclude those orders entered into FMBS
that represent an order other than a customer order, such as
``firm,'' ``customer yield'' (which are broker-dealer orders),
``market maker'' (which is an on-floor market maker), or ``off-floor
market maker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies would be
excluded from all threshold volume calculations, and no per contract
subsidy would be paid on these transactions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that each strategy is coded in such a
way so that the Exchange's trading system is able to discern these
different types of trading strategies. For a definition of these
strategies, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55358 (February
27, 2007), 72 FR 9828 (March 5, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-14).

                                Per Contract Average Daily Volume Subsidy Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tier I                     Tier II            Tier III             Tier IV             Tier V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75,001 to 100,000...............  100,001 to 200,000  200,001 to 300,000  300,001 to 400,000  400,001 and
                                                                                greater.
$0.01 per contract..............  $0.04 per contract  $0.05 per contract  $0.06 per contract  $0.07 per
                                                                                contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The per contract subsidy would be paid based on the average daily
contract volume for that month, which are customer-to-non-customer
transactions \12\ and are in excess of 75,000 contracts.\13\ Payments
would be made at the stated rate for each tier for those contracts that
fall within that tier. These contracts may include customer-to-customer
transactions for the purposes of reaching a tier, but as stated above,
a per contract subsidy would not be paid on these executions.
Therefore, if a member organization has 1,444,000 eligible contracts in
a month with 19 trading days, that member organization would receive a
per contract subsidy because it met the 75,000 contract threshold
(1,444,000 eligible contracts/19 days = 76,000, the average daily
contract volume). Therefore, the member organization with Exchange
registered floor brokers would receive $0.01 per contract on 1,000 non-
customer-to-customer contracts

multiplied by 19 trading days, resulting in a subsidy of $190.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of this proposal, ``customer-to-non-customer''
transactions refers to customer-to-non-customer transactions, as
well as non-customer-to-non-customer transactions.
    \13\ Based on the amount of customer-to-customer contracts, a
member organization could enter Tier II or a higher tier due to the
amount of customer-to-customer contract volume. For example,
assuming the threshold requirements have been met and the average
daily customer-to-customer transactions are 105,000 contracts, if a
member organization has 2,200,000 eligible contracts in a month with
20 trading days (110,000 average daily contract volume, with 5,000
contracts representing customer-to-non-customer contracts), that
member organization would receive no subsidy for Tier I ($0.01 per
contract), as there were no customer-to-non-customer contracts
considered when calculating Tier 1. Of the remaining 10,000
contracts, the member organization would receive $0.04 per contract
multiplied by 20 trading days on the 5,000 customer-to-non-customer
contracts. Thus, that member organization would receive a subsidy
for that month totaling $4,000.
    \14\ This example assumes that the threshold requirements have
been met and the average daily customer-to-customer transactions are
less than 75,001 contracts, which means that the subsidy will be
paid starting with contract 75,001. To illustrate a subsidy covering
two tiers, (again assuming the threshold requirements have been met
(2,200,000 eligible contracts/20 days = 110,000, the average daily
contract volume) and the average daily customer-to-customer
transactions are less than 75,001 contracts), if a member
organization has 2,200,000 eligible contracts in a month with 20
trading days, that member organization would receive $0.01 per
contract on 25,000 customer-to-non-customer contracts multiplied by
20 trading days, with the remaining 10,000 contracts receiving $0.04
per contract multiplied by 20 trading days. Thus, that member
organization would receive a subsidy for that month totaling
$13,000. To further illustrate the impact of customer-to-customer
volume, assuming the threshold requirements have been met and the
average daily customer-to-customer transactions are 85,000
contracts, if a member organization has 2,200,000 eligible contracts
in a month with 20 trading days, that member organization would
receive $0.01 per contract on 15,000 customer-to-non-customer
contracts multiplied by 20 trading days, with the remaining 10,000
contracts receiving $0.04 per contract multiplied by 20 trading
days. Thus, that member organization would receive a subsidy for
that month totaling $11,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When computing the threshold amounts, the Exchange intends to first
count all customer-to-customer transactions and then all other
customer-to-non-customer transactions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The exchange believes that this method of calculation
should therefore help member organizations with Exchange registered
floor brokers to maximize the subsidy that is paid to them because
customer-to-customer transactions will help the member organization
reach the threshold requirements and then qualifying transactions
after the threshold requirements are met will be paid the applicable
per contract subsidy. See footnotes 13 and 14 above for specific
examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the floor brokerage
assessment that is set forth on the Exchange's fee schedule in several
places, specifically the Summary of Equity Option and RUT and RMN
Charges, the Summary of Index Option Charges, the Summary of U.S.
Dollar-Settled Foreign Currency Option Charges, and the Summary of
Physical Delivery Currency Option Charges.
    The Exchange states that purpose of providing for a subsidy and
deleting the floor brokerage assessment is to attract additional floor
brokerage business to the Exchange, which should, in turn, attract more
consistent liquidity as the Exchange's market share increases. The
purpose of deleting the floor brokerage assessment on the Summary of
Physical Delivery Currency Option Charges is to delete a fee that is
deemed no longer necessary by the Exchange at this time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ To clarify, the floor broker subsidy set forth in this
proposal does not apply to the physical delivery currency options,
as those options are not entered into FBMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that this proposal should not adversely
affect its commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \17\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may
summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2008-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-08. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-Phlx-2008-08 and should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2245 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4276]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01246]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-115, OMB Control No. 3235-0132]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Trust
Indenture Act Rules 7a-15 Through 7a-37

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

    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'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 (17 CFR 260.7a-15--260.7a-37) under the
Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. 77aaa et seq.) set forth the
general requirements as to form and content of applications, statements
and reports that must be filed under the Trust Indenture Act. The
respondents are persons and entities subject to the requirements of the
Trust Indenture Act. Trust Indenture Act Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 are
disclosure guidelines and do not directly result in any collection of
information. The rules are assigned only one burden hour for
administrative convenience.
    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 control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by February 23, 2023 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01246 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66870-66872]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0011]

Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations for membership on ACCSH.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health (OSHA Assistant Secretary) invites interested persons to submit
nominations for membership on ACCSH.

DATES: Nominations for ACCSH must be submitted (postmarked, sent,
transmitted, or received) by January 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations and supporting materials by one
of the following methods:
    Electronically: Nominations, including attachments, may be
submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting
nominations;
    Facsimile: If your nomination and supporting materials, including
attachments, do not exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger or courier
service: Submit your nominations and supporting materials to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0011, Room N-2625, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2350 (TTY number<PHONE_NUMBER>). The Department of Labor and
OSHA's Docket Office accepts deliveries by hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service are accepted during normal business
hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All nominations and supporting materials must include
the Agency name and docket number for this Federal Register notice
(Docket No.

OSHA-2012-0011). Because of security-related procedures, submitting
nominations by regular mail may result in a significant delay in their
receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures for submitting nominations by hand delivery,
express delivery, and messenger or courier service. For additional
information on submitting nominations, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the Supplementary Information section below.
    All submissions in response to this Federal Register notice,
including personal information provided, are posted without change at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested persons
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2012-0011 at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through that Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

For Additional Information

    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA, Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information: Mr. Damon Bonneau, OSHA Directorate of
Construction, Room N-3468, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary invites interested
persons to submit nominations for membership on ACCSH.
    Background. ACCSH is a continuing advisory committee established
under Section 107(e) of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 3701, 3704(d)), generally known as the Construction
Safety Act (CSA), to advise the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) in the
formulation of construction safety and health standards, as well as on
policy matters arising under the CSA and the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). In particular, 29 CFR
1911.10(a) and 1912.3(a) provide that the Assistant Secretary shall
consult with ACCSH whenever the Agency proposes any safety or health
standard that affects the construction industry.
    ACCSH operates in accordance with the CSA, the OSH Act, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and regulations issued
pursuant to those statutes (29 CFR part 1912, 41 CFR part 102-3). ACCSH
generally meets two to four times a year.
    ACCSH membership. ACCSH is comprised of 15 members who the
Secretary appoints.
    The categories of ACCSH membership, and the number of new members
to be appointed, are:
     Five members who are qualified by experience and
affiliation to present the viewpoint of employers in the construction
industry--three employer representatives will be appointed;
     Five members who are similarly qualified to present the
viewpoint of employees in the construction industry--three employee
representatives will be appointed;
     Two representatives of State safety and health agencies--
one representative from a State safety and health agency will be
appointed;
     Two public members, qualified by knowledge and experience
to make a useful contribution to the work of ACCSH, such as those who
have professional or technical experience and competence with
occupational safety and health in the construction industry--one public
representative will be appointed; and
     One representative the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services designates and the Secretary appoints--no new
appointment will be made.
    ACCSH members generally serve staggered two-year terms, unless they
resign, cease to be qualified, become unable to serve, or the Secretary
removes them (29 CFR 1912.3(e)). The Secretary may appoint ACCSH
members to successive terms. No member of ACCSH, other than members who
represent employers or employees, shall have an economic interest in
any proposed rule that affects the construction industry (29 CFR
1912.6).
    The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the
workplace and seeks broad-based and diverse ACCSH membership. Any
interested person or organizations may nominate more than one
individual for membership on ACCSH. Interested persons also are invited
and encouraged to submit statements in support of nominees.
    Submission requirements. Nominations must include the following
information:
    (1) Nominee's contact information and current employment or
position;
    (2) Nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior
membership on ACCSH and other relevant organizations and associations;
    (3) Categories of membership (employer, employee, public, State
safety and health agency) that the nominee is qualified to represent;
    (4) A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications
that addresses the nominee's suitability for each of the nominated
membership categories;
    (5) Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that
indicate the nominee's knowledge, experience, and expertise in
occupational safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the
construction industry; and
    (6) A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is
willing to regularly attend and participate in ACCSH meetings, and has
no conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on ACCSH.
    Member selection. ACCSH members are selected on the basis of their
experience, knowledge, and competence in the field of occupational
safety and health, particularly as it pertains to the construction
industry. Information, received through this nomination process, in
addition to other relevant sources of information, will assist the
Secretary in appointing members to ACCSH. In selecting ACCSH members,
the Secretary will consider individuals nominated in response to this
Federal Register notice, as well as other qualified individuals.

Public Participation

    Instructions for submitting nominations. All nominations,
supporting documents, attachments, and other materials must identify
the Agency name and the docket number for this Federal Register notice
(Docket No. OSHA-2012-0011). You may submit materials: (1)
Electronically, (2) by FAX, or (3) by hard copy. You may supplement
electronic submissions by attaching electronic files. If you wish to
supplement electronic submissions with hard copy documents, you must
submit them to the OSHA Docket Office and clearly identify your
electronic submission by Agency name and docket number (Docket No.
OSHA-2012-0011) so the materials can be attached to your electronic
submission.
    Because of security-related procedures, materials submitted by
regular mail may experience significant

delays. For information about security procedures concerning materials
delivered by hand, express delivery, and messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office.
    All submissions, including personal information provided, will be
posted in the docket without change. Therefore, OSHA cautions
interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social
Security numbers and birthdates. Guidance on submitting nominations and
supporting materials is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov
and from the OSHA Docket Office.
    Access to docket. All submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from that Web page. All submissions,
including materials not available on-line, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. For information about accessing
materials in Docket No. OSHA-2012-0011, including materials not
available on-line, contact the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, also is available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by section 7 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656), section 107 of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704), the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), 29 CFR part 1912, 41 CFR part 102-3,
and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 2, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-27208 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 128]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31466]

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

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: Rule 15c3-4; OMB Control No. 3235-0497, SEC File No. 270-
441.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``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.
    Rule 15c3-4 (17 CFR 240.15c3-4) (the ``Rule'') under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ``Exchange Act'')
requires certain broker-dealers that are registered with the Commission
as OTC derivatives dealers, or who compute their net capital charges
under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) (``ANC firms''), to
establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management
controls. The Rule sets forth the basic elements for an OTC derivatives
dealer or an ANC firm to consider and include when establishing,
documenting, and reviewing its internal risk management control system,
which are designed to, among other things, ensure the integrity of an
OTC derivatives dealer's or an ANC firm's risk measurement, monitoring,
and management process, to clarify accountability at the appropriate
organizational level, and to define the permitted scope of the dealer's
activities and level of risk. The Rule also requires that management of
an OTC derivatives dealer or an ANC firm must periodically review, in
accordance with written procedures, the firm's business activities for
consistency with its risk management guidelines.
    The staff estimates that the average amount of time a new OTC
derivatives dealer will spend establishing and documenting its risk
management control system is 2,000 hours and that, on average, a
registered OTC derivatives dealer will spend approximately 200 hours
each year to maintain (e.g., reviewing and updating) its risk
management control system.\1\ Currently, four firms are registered with
the Commission as OTC derivatives dealers. The staff estimates that
approximately four additional OTC derivatives dealers may become
registered within the next three years. Thus, the estimated annualized
burden would be 800 hours for the four OTC derivatives dealers
currently registered with the Commission to maintain their risk
management control systems,\2\ 2,666 hours for the four new OTC
derivatives dealers to establish and document their risk management
control systems,\3\ and 400 hours for the four new OTC derivatives
dealers to maintain their risk management control systems.\4\
Accordingly, the staff estimates the total annualized burden associated
with Rule 15c3-4 for the eight OTC derivatives dealers will be
approximately 3,866 hours annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice does not cover the hour burden associated with
ANC firms, because the hour burden for ANC firms is included in the
Paperwork Reduction Act collection for Rule 15c3-1, which requires
ANC firms to comply with specific provisions of Rule 15c3-4 in
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii), 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(ii), and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(viii)(C).
    \2\ (200 hours x 4 firms) = 800.
    \3\ (2000 hours x 1.333 firms) = 2,666.
    \4\ (200 hours x 4 firms x/2) = 400 {the number is divided by
two to show an average, since it is assumed that the four new OTC
derivatives dealers will register in even intervals over the three
years{time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff believes that the cost of complying with Rule 15c3-4 will
be approximately $279 per hour.\5\ This per hour cost is based upon an
annual average hourly salary for a compliance manager who would be
responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Rule 15c3-
4. Accordingly, the total annualized cost for all affected OTC
derivatives dealers is estimated to be $1,078,614.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The $279 per hour salary figure for a compliance manager is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2011, 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.
    \6\ 3,866 hours x $279 per hour = $1,078,614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
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 OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that
does not display a valid OMB control number.
    Comments should be directed to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 26, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31466 Filed 12-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P