Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 53369 

3The Commission has modified the text of the 

summaries prepared by FICC. 

4The specific language of the proposed provision 

can be found at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/ 

legal/rule_filings/2010/ficc/2010-04.pdf. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

6The Commission has previously approved a 

similar provision for another clearing agency for the 

same purpose of providing such clearing agency’s 

members with the needed clarity. Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 34–56069 (July 13, 2007), 

72 FR 39869 (July 20, 2007). 7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), 

and (C) below, of the most significant 

aspects of these statements.3

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

FICC is proposing to add a provision 

to the rules of GSD to make explicit the 

close out netting that would be applied 

to obligations between FICC and its 

members in the event that FICC 

becomes insolvent or defaults in its 

obligations to its members.4

FICC has been approached by some of 

its dealer members that have requested 

that FICC add a provision to the rules 

of GSD to make explicit the close out 

netting of obligations between FICC and 

its members in the event that FICC 

becomes insolvent or defaults in its 

obligations to its members. Such 

members have stated that the proposed 

rule change will provide clarity in their 

application of balance sheet netting to 

their positions with FICC under U.S. 

GAAP in accordance with the criteria 

specified in the Financial Accounting 

Standards Board’s Interpretation No. 39, 

Offsetting of Amounts Related to 

Certain Contracts (FIN 39). The 

members have stated further that the 

proposed rule change would allow them 

to comply with Basel Accord Standards 

relating to netting. Specifically, firms 

are able to calculate their capital 

requirements on the basis of their net 

credit exposure where they have legally 

enforceable netting arrangements with 

their counterparties, which includes a 

close out netting provision in the event 

of the default of a counterparty (in this 

case, the division of FICC acting as a 

CCP). 

FICC believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of Section 17A of the Act 5

and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to FICC because 

the proposed rule change would provide 

FICC members with clarity in the 

calculation of their capital requirements 

with respect to their net credit exposure 

where members have legally enforceable 

netting arrangements with their 

counterparties. Moreover, other clearing 

agencies have similar provisions in their 

rules for the same purpose.6

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

FICC does not believe that the 

proposed rule change would impose any 

burden on competition. 

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

Written comments relating to the 

proposed rule change have not been 

solicited or received. FICC will notify 

the Commission of any written 

comments received by FICC. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: (A) by 

order approve or disapprove the 

proposed rule change or (B) institute 

proceedings to determine whether the 

proposed rule change should be 

disapproved. 

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 

rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 

File Number SR–FICC–2010–04 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–FICC–2010–04. 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 Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

am and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings 

will also be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of FICC 

and on FICC’s Web site at http:// 

www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/ 

rule_filings/2010/ficc/2010-04.pdf. 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–FICC–2010–04 and should 

be submitted on or before September 21, 

2010. 

For the Commission by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.7

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21678 Filed 8–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Agency Information 

Collection Activity Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted 

below has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The ICR describes 

the nature of the information collection 

and the expected burden. The Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
53370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 31, 2010 / Notices 

1The Board exempted the transfer of indirect 

control of that Class II carrier, Florida East Coast 

Railway, LLC (FEC), from Fortress to RailAmerica, 

with Fortress retaining indirect control of 

period was published on May 6, 2010 

(75 FR 25033–25034). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 

days, to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725–17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention NHTSA Desk Officer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria Vegega, PhD Chief, Behavioral 

Research Division, Office of Behavioral 

Safety Research (NTI–131), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W44–302, 

Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Vegega’s 

phone number is 202–366–2668 and her 

e-mail address is Maria.Vegega@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Focus Group Review of 

Advanced Alcohol Detection 

Technology. 

Type of Request: New information 

collection requirement. 

Abstract: In 2008, 11,773 people were 

killed in alcohol-impaired-driving 

crashes. Drivers are considered to be 

alcohol-impaired when their blood 

alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08 

grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. 

These alcohol-impaired-driving 

fatalities accounted for 32 percent of the 

total motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 

the United States. 

In a continuing effort to reduce the 

adverse consequences of alcoholimpaired driving, NHTSA in 

conjunction with the Automotive 

Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) is 

undertaking research and development 

to explore the feasibility of, and public 

policy challenges associated with, use of 

in-vehicle alcohol detection technology. 

The agency believes that use of vehiclebased, alcohol detection technologies 

could help to significantly reduce the 

number of alcohol-impaired driving 

crashes, deaths and injuries by 

preventing drivers from driving while 

their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 

is at or above the legal limit. In 2008, 

ACTS and NHTSA entered into a 5– 

Year Cooperative Agreement to ‘‘explore 

the feasibility, the potential benefits of, 

and the public policy challenges 

associated with a more widespread use 

of unobtrusive technology to prevent 

drunk driving’’. The goal of this research 

effort, the Driver Alcohol Detection 

System for Safety (DADSS) project, is to 

develop and test prototypes that may be 

considered for vehicle integration 

thereafter. 

As technology development 

progresses and decisions are being made 

about how to integrate such technology 

into vehicles, NHTSA needs a better 

understanding of public preferences 

with respect to in-vehicle alcohol 

detection devices. Optimization of 

technology and public acceptance of it 

once deployed will depend on the 

extent to which public attitudes are 

taken into account during the 

development process. Recognizing the 

need to obtain input from drivers early 

in the development process, NHTSA 

proposes to conduct a total of 24 focus 

groups in two stages. The first set of 

focus groups (12 focus groups) will 

obtain information from licensed drivers 

on public perceptions and attitudes 

concerning in-vehicle alcohol detection 

technology designed to prevent alcoholimpaired driving. Information from this 

phase of the project will be used by 

NHTSA and the DADSS research team 

to provide input to decision making 

regarding vehicle integration with 

respect to the technology under 

investigation. A second set of focus 

groups (12 focus groups) will gauge 

driver reaction to technology 

prototypes, obtain input on alternative 

prototype features, and obtain guidance 

on strategies for introduction of the 

technology into the vehicle fleet. The 

information will also be used to identify 

potential barriers to acceptance of the 

technologies. 

Affected Public: Drivers age 21 years 

and older will be recruited in four 

locations to participate in focus groups. 

They will be provided with a stipend to 

reimburse them for expenses and 

compensate them for their time in 

participating in the discussions. 

Participation by all respondents would 

be voluntary and anonymous. All focus 

groups will be conducted by a trained 

moderator. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 288 

hours (24 focus groups with eight 

participants in each, averaging 1.5 

hours). 

Comments are invited on the 

following: 

(i) 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; 

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; 

(iii) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(iv) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is most effective 

if OMB receives it within 30 days of 

publication. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). 

Jeff Michael, 

Associate Administrator, Research and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21757 Filed 8–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35379] 

RailAmerica, Inc., Palm Beach Holding, 

Inc., RailAmerica Transportation Corp., 

Central Railroad Company of 

Indianapolis, Chicago Ft. Wayne and 

Eastern Railroad Division, Fortress 

Investment Group, LLC, and RR 

Acquisition Holding, LLC—Control 

Exemption—Delphos Terminal 

Company, Inc. 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Board grants an 

exemption, under 49 U.S.C. 10502, from 

the prior approval requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 11323–25, for RailAmerica, Inc. 

(RailAmerica); Palm Beach Holding, Inc. 

(Palm Beach); RailAmerica 

Transportation Corp. (RTC); Central 

Railroad Company of Indianapolis 

(CERA); Chicago Ft. Wayne and Eastern 

Railroad Division (CFE); Fortress 

Investment Group, LLC (Fortress), on 

behalf of certain private equity funds 

managed by Fortress and its affiliates; 

and RR Acquisition Holding, LLC (RR 

Acquisition), to acquire control of 

Delphos Terminal Company, Inc. (DTC), 

subject to labor protective conditions. 

Pursuant to an agreement that CERA, a 

Class III rail carrier, intends to enter into 

with Bunge North America (East), LLC 

(Bunge), the parent company of DTC, 

CERA will acquire from Bunge all of the 

issued and outstanding shares of stock 

of DTC and will thus acquire direct 

control of DTC. Fortress, RR 

Acquisition, RailAmerica, Palm Beach, 

and RTC will indirectly control DTC, 

because Fortress’s noncarrier affiliate, 

RR Acquisition, controls noncarrier 

RailAmerica; RailAmerica directly 

controls noncarrier Palm Beach; Palm 

Beach directly controls noncarrier RTC; 

and RTC directly controls CERA. 

RailAmerica is a holding company that 

directly or indirectly controls 1 Class II 

and 29 Class III railroads. Fortress is a 

noncarrier that indirectly controls 1 

Class II rail carrier.1


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES