Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices 50033

used by Dr. Ma to eat the food she brought to NIH,

were surveyed, and no contamination was found.

Additionally, the evidence indicates that the P–32

contamination of the carpet in front of the

conference room refrigerator occurred sometime

after 5:00 p.m. on June 29. The AIT report states in

the chronology that the NIH RSB initial estimated

time of ingestion was noon on June 29, 1995.

However, after review of the physical evidence and

radiation surveys, NIH used 11:00 am, June 28,

1995, as the most probable initial ingestion time.

NIH also used this initial ingestion time for the

other 26 contaminated NIH individuals involved.

NRC also used this initial time of ingestion in its

dose estimates.

36The investigation produced no evidence to

corroborate Petitioners’ assertions that Dr.

Weinstein had suggested to several people either

that Petitioners already had a child in China, or that

Petitioners deliberately contaminated themselves in

order to terminate Dr. Ma’s pregnancy.

37See letter from Ashok C. Thadani, Acting

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness, to Michael M. Gottesman, M.D.,

Deputy Director for Intramural Research, NIH, dated

September 17, 1997.

responsible for the contamination of Dr.

Ma36 and of the water cooler, which was

the source of contamination to the 26

NIH employees, however, was

definitively identified. In the absence of

any evidence to the contrary, NRC

presumes that the violations were

caused by an employee(s) of NIH and

that the material belonged to NIH. As

explained above, NRC also concludes

that the contamination of Dr. Ma and of

the water cooler was not a result of the

Licensee’s violations of NRC

requirements for security and control of

radioactive material. See Section III. A,

‘‘Violations of NRC requirements for

security and control of licensed

material’’, supra. Normally, the

exposures beyond regulatory limits in

this case would be subject to significant

enforcement action. However, under the

circumstances of this case, the

Commission has decided to exercise its

enforcement discretion and not initiate

formal enforcement action against NIH

for these violations. Discretion is being

exercised because NIH fully cooperated

with the investigation, there is no

evidence that NIH contributed directly

or indirectly to the deliberate misuse of

licensed material involved, and NIH

could not reasonably foresee that an

employee or employees would

maliciously misuse radioactive material

as was done in this case.

Accordingly, enforcement action

against NIH, in addition to that already

taken in the NOV and Proposed

Imposition of Civil Penalty $2500 (EA

96–027) and the Order Imposing Civil

Penalty $2500 (EA 96–027), is not

warranted in this case for the

occupational exposure of Dr. Ma beyond

regulatory limits, the exposure of the

member of the public beyond regulatory

limits, or the contamination of the water

cooler. 37

IV. Conclusions

The following requests of Petitioners

are granted in part as described above:

for enforcement action against NIH for

violations of NRC security and control

requirements and for violation of NRC

requirements related to radiation safety

training, ordering radioactive materials,

inventory control of radioactive

materials, monitoring, and the issuance,

use, and collection of dosimetry.

Petitioners’ request for NRC action to

ensure adequate procedures and

instructions to exposed persons for

sample collection is granted as

described above. The following requests

of Petitioners for enforcement action

against NIH are denied: for the exposure

of Dr. Ma beyond regulatory limits, for

the exposure of Dr. Ma’s fetus, and for

the contamination of the water cooler;

regarding notification to Dr. Ma of her

level of contamination; regarding Dr.

Ma’s declaration of pregnancy;

regarding the conduct of surveys after

Dr. Ma’s contamination; and for the

failure to accurately calculate Dr. Ma’s

occupational radiation dose. Finally,

Petitioners’ request to suspend or revoke

the NIH license is denied.

A copy of this Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for Commission review in accordance

with 10 CFR § 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, the Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after issuance,

unless the Commission, on its own

motion, institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

This 17th day of September 1997,

Rockville, Maryland.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–25318 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Request for Public Comment

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 13e–1, SEC File No. 270–

255, OMB Control No. 3235–0305. Rule

12g3–2, SEC File No. 270–104, OMB Control

No. 3235–0119, Trust Indenture Act Rules,

SEC File No. 270–115, OMB Control No.

3235–0132.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission.

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collections of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit these existing

collections of information to the Office

of Management and Budget for

extension and approval:

‘‘Purchase of Securities by issuer

thereof under the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934’’. Rule 13e–1 under the

Exchange Act is designed to provide

shareholders and the marketplace with

relevant information concerning issuer

repurchases during a tender offer for its

securities by a third party. Public

companies are the respondents. An

estimated 20 respondents wiil file

submissions annually at and estimated

13 hours per response for a total annual

burden of 260 hours.

‘‘Securities Exchange Act of 1934—

Rule 12g3–2.’’ Rule 12g3–2 provides an

exemption for certain foreign securities.

It affects approximately 1800 foreign

issuer respondents at an estimated one

burden hour per response for a total

annual burden of 1800 hours.

‘‘Requirements as to Form and

Content of Applications, Statements and

Reports under the Trust Indenture Act

of 1939.’’ Rules 7a–15 through 7a–37

under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939

(‘‘TIA’’) provides guidance for

complying with requirements under the

TIA. Persons and entities subject to TIA

requirements are the respondents. No

information collection burdens are

imposed directly by these rules so they

are assigned only one burden hour for

administrative convenience.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given

to comments and suggestions submitted

in writing on or before November 24,

1997.

Please direct your written comments

to Michael E. Bartell, Associate

Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20549.
50034 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices

1Custody of Investment Company Assets With

Futures Commission Merchants and Commodity

Clearing Organizations, Investment Company Act

Release No. 22389 (Dec. 11, 1996) (61 FR 66207

(Dec. 17, 1996)).

2Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

Annual Report (1996).

Dated: September 16, 1997.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25322 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, DC 20549.

Extension: Rule 17f–6, SEC File No. 270–

392, OMB Control No. 3235–0447. Rule

2a19–1, SEC File No. 270–294, OMB Control

No. 3235–0332. Rule 17f–2, SEC File No.

270–233, OMB Control No. 3235–0223.

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

requests for extension of the previously

approved collections of information

discussed below.

Rule 17f–6 under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (‘‘Act’’) permits

registered investment companies

(‘‘funds’’) to maintain assets (i.e.,

margin) with futures commission

merchants (‘‘FCMs’’) in connection with

commodity transactions effected on

both domestic and foreign exchanges.1

Prior to the adoption of the rule, funds

generally were required to maintain

such assets in special accounts with a

custodian bank.

Rule 17f–6 permits funds to maintain

their assets with FCMs that are

registered under the Commodity

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) and that are not

affiliated with the fund. The rule

requires that the manner in which the

FCM maintains a fund’s assets be

governed by a written contract, which

must contain certain provisions. First,

the contract must provide that the FCM

must comply with the segregation

requirements of section 4d(2) of the CEA

[7 U.S.C. 6d(2)] and the rules thereunder

[17 CFR Chapter I] or, if applicable, the

secured amount requirements of rule

30.7 under the CEA [17 CFR 30.7].

Second, the contract must provide that

when placing the fund’s margin with

another entity for clearing purposes, the

FCM must obtain an acknowledgment

that the fund’s assets are held on behalf

of the FCM’s customers in accordance

with provisions under the CEA. Lastly,

the contract must require the FCM,

upon request, to furnish records on the

fund’s assets to the Commission or its

staff.

The requirement of a written contract

that contains certain provisions ensure

important safeguards and other benefits

relative to the custody of investment

company assets by FCMs. For example,

requiring FCMs upon request to furnish

to the Commission or its staff

information concerning the investment

company’s assets facilitates Commission

inspections of investment companies.

The contract requirement governing

transfers of investment company margin

seeks to accommodate the legitimate

needs of the participants in the

commodity settlement process,

consistent with the safekeeping of

investment company assets. The

contract requirement requiring FCMs to

comply with the segregation or secured

amount requirements of the CEA and

the rules thereunder is designed to

safeguard fund assets held by FCMs.

The Commission estimates that

approximately 2,000 investment

companies could deposit margin with

FCMs under rule 17f–6 in connection

with their investments in futures

contracts and commodity options. It is

estimated that each investment

company uses and deposits margin with

3 different FCMs in connection with its

commodity transactions. Approximately

241 FCMs are eligible to hold

investment company margin under the

rule.2

The only paperwork burden of the

rule consists of meeting the rule’s

contract requirements. The Commission

estimates that after the first year, 2,000

investment companies will spend an

average of 1 hour complying with the

contract requirements of the rule (e.g.,

signing contracts with additional

FCMs), for a total of 2,000 burden hours.

The Commission estimates that each of

the 241 FCMs eligible to hold

investment company margin under the

rule will spend 2 hours complying with

the rule’s contract requirements, for a

total of 482 burden hours. The total

annual burden for the rule are estimated

to be 2,482 hours.

Rule 2a19–1 under the Act provides

that investment company directors will

not be considered interested persons, as

defined by section 2(a) (19) of the Act,

solely because they are registered

broker-dealers or affiliated persons of

registered broker-dealers, provided that

the broker-dealer does not execute any

portfolio transactions for the company’s

complex, engage in any principal

transactions with the complex or

distribute shares for the complex for at

least six months prior to the time that

the director is to be considered not to

be an interested person and for the

period during which the director

continues to be considered not to be an

interested person. The rule also requires

the investment company’s board of

directors to determine that the company

would not be adversely affected by

refraining from business with the

broker-dealer. In addition, the rule

provides that no more than a minority

of the disinterested directors of the

company may be registered brokerdealers or their affiliates.

Before the adoption of rule 2a19–1,

many investment companies found it

necessary to file with the Commission

applications for orders exempting

directors from section 2(a)(19) of the

Act. Rule 2a19–1 is intended to alleviate

the burdens on the investment company

industry of filing for such orders in

circumstances where there is no

potential conflict of interest. The

conditions of the rule are designed to

indicate whether the director has a stake

in the broker-dealer’s business with the

company such that he or she might not

be able to act independently of the

company’s management.

It is estimated that approximately

3,200 investment companies may

choose to rely on the rule, and each

investment company may spend one

hour annually compiling and keeping

records related to the requirements of

the rule. The total annual burden

associated with the rule is estimated to

be 3,200 hours.

Rule 17f–2, under the Act, establishes

safeguards for arrangements in which a

registered management investment

company is deemed to maintain custody

of its own assets, such as when the fund

maintains its assets in a facility that

provides safekeeping but not custodial

services. The rule includes several

recordkeeping or reporting

requirements. The funds directors must

prepare a resolution designating not

more than five fund officers or

responsible employees who may have

access to the fund’s assets. The

designated access persons (two or more

of whom must act jointly when

handling fund assets) must prepare a

written notation providing certain

information about each deposit or

withdrawal of fund assets, and must

transmit the notation to another officer

or director designated by the directors.

Independent public accountants must

verify the fund’s assets without prior

notice to the fund twice each year.