Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices 19107

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 17 CFR 240.19b-4 and 19d-1(c)(2).

2The Exchange has submitted to the SEC

concurrently with the proposed rule change a minor

rule violation reporting plan in accordance with

Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act. See Letter from

David Rusoff, Attorney, Foley & Lardner, to Glen

Barrentine, SEC, dated October 6, 1995.

3See Letter from David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley

& Lardner, to Glen Barrentine, SEC, dated December

8, 1995 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).

4See Letter from David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley

& Lardner, to Jon Kroeper, Attorney, SEC, dated

January 12, 1996 (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’).

5See Letter from David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley

& Lardner, to Glen Barrentine, SEC, dated March 3,

1996 (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’).

6See Letter from David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley

& Lardner, to Jon Kroeper, Attorney, SEC, dated

April 16, 1996 (‘‘Amendment No. 4’’).

7 In Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013

(June 1, 1984), 49 FR 23828 (June 8, 1994), the SEC

adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule 19d1 to allow self-regulatory organizations to submit

for SEC approval plans for the abbreviated reporting

of minor disciplinary infractions. Under the

amendments, any disciplinary action taken by a

self-regulatory organization against any person for

violation of a rule of the self-regulatory organization

that has been designated as a minor rule violation

pursuant to a plan filed with the SEC shall not be

considered ‘‘final’’ for purposes of Section 19(d)(1)

of the Act if the sanction imposed consists of a fine

not exceeding $2,500 and the sanctioned person has

not sought an adjudication, including a hearing, or

otherwise exhausted his or her administrative

remedies with respect to the matter.

The SEC has approved minor disciplinary rule

plans by virtually every stock exchange and the

National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. See,

e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21918

(April 3, 1985), 50 FR 14068 (April 9, 1985) (File

No. 4–260) (Amex); Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 22415 (September 17, 1985), 50 FR

38600 (September 23, 1985) (File No. 4–284)

(NYSE); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22654

(November 21, 1985), 50 FR 48853 (November 27,

1985) (File No. 4–285) (PSE).

benefit has been paid by the Exchange

will be those individuals who are active

members at the time of the assessment.

The actual date upon which such

assessments will occur will be at the

discretion of the Exchange. Finally, the

proposed rule change makes certain

editorial changes to Rule 3.24 that do

not affect its substance.

The purpose of the Member Death

Benefit Program is to provide a death

benefit to the designated beneficiaries of

active members. The Exchange believes

that the proposed rule change will

further that purpose and provide for a

fairer and more appropriate way to

provide the member death benefit. For

example, currently if an individual who

has been an active member for three

quarters of the previous year

temporarily leaves his seat in order to

take a short vacation, that individual

would not be covered by the Member

Death Benefit Program in the event that

the individual ere to pass away while on

vacation. The same is true if the

individual were to temporarily leave his

seat because of an illness or accident

and then were to pass away shortly

thereafter. The proposed rule change is

intended to cover these types of

individuals under the Member Death

Benefit Program because they have been

active members for much of the year

preceding the time of their death.

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and

furthers the objectives of Sections

6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in

particular, in that it is designed to (i)

provide for the equitable allocation of

reasonable dues, fees, and other charges

among Exchange members and (ii)

remove impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system by serving

to assist the Exchange in attracting and

retaining active members through the

enhancement of the financial security of

their families in the event of their death.

IV. Discussion

The Commission finds that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to a national securities

exchange, and, in particular, the

requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.4

The Commission believes that the

Exchange’s proposal is consistent with

the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the

rules of an exchange be designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts, and, in general, to

protect investors and the public interest.

The Commission further believes that

the proposed rule change is consistent

with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which

requires the equitable allocation of

reasonable dues and fees among

members and persons using exchange

facilities.

The Commission believes that

proposed amended Rule 3.24 reasonably

addresses the Exchange’s interest in

providing death benefits to an active

member’s designated beneficiary. Under

proposed Rule 3.24, the Exchange

establishes a defined benefit of $50,000

to be paid to a designated beneficiary of

an ‘‘active member’’, as defined above,

upon which each active member will be

assessed an amount equal to $50,000

divided by the number of active

members at the time of assessment. The

Commission believes that the revised

Member Death Benefit Program is

reasonable and should provide

enhanced benefits to a wider range of

the Exchange’s members.

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

CBOE–96–13) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10643 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37140; File No. SR–CHX–

95–25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and

4 to Proposed Rule Change by the

Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated

Relating to the Establishment of a

Minor Rule Violation Procedure and

Reporting Plan

April 23, 1996.

Pursuant to Sections 19 (b)(1) and

(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s (b)(1) and

(d)(1), and Rules 19b-4 and 19d–1(c)(2)

thereunder,1 notice is hereby given that

on October 11, 1995, the Chicago Stock

Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘CHX’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule

change,2 and on December 8, 1995 filed

Amendment No. 1 thereto.3 The original

filing, as amended by Amendment No.

1, was published for comment in

Securities Exchange Act Release No.

36576 (December 12, 1995), 60 FR

65362 (December 19, 1995). On January

17, 1996 the Exchange submitted to the

Commission Amendment No. 2 to the

proposed rule change,4 on March 5,

1996 the Exchange submitted

Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule

change,5 and on April 17, 1996 the

Exchange submitted Amendment No. 4

to the proposed rule change.6 The

proposed rule change, as amended, is

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which Items have been prepared by the

self-regulatory organization. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change, as amended, from interested

persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

In the original filing as amended by

Amendment No. 1, the Exchange

proposed to add a minor rule violation

procedure (‘‘Procedure’’) as Article XII,

Rule 9 of the Exchange’s rules, adopt a

minor violation reporting plan

(‘‘Plan’’),7 and renumber existing Article
19108 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36576

(December 12, 1995), 60 FR 65362 (December 19,

1995); Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

9See Amendment No. 2, supra note 4.

10See Amendment No. 3, supra note 5.

11See Amendment No. 3, supra note 5.

12See Amendment No. 4, supra note 6.

13This discussion consolidates the ‘‘Purpose’’

discussion as submitted in SR–CHX–95–25 and

Amendment No. 1 thereto, see supra note 8, and

also discusses Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to the

proposal being filed herein.

14Any fine imposed under the Procedure that is

contested may be publicly reported by the Exchange

to the same extent that CHX disciplinary

proceedings may be publicly reported. See CHX

Rules, Article XII, Rule 9 (Pending Proceedings).

15The Exchange will file with the SEC, for its

approval pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and

Rule 19b–4 thereunder, any proposed additions to,

deletions from, or other modifications to either the

list of rule violations set forth in Article XII, Rule

9 that are deemed to be minor rule violations or the

related Recommended Fine Schedule.

As part of the proposed rule filing, the Exchange

has submitted a Recommended Fine Schedule

which contains recommended dollar amounts for

the first, second, and third and subsequent

violations, as calculated on a twelve-month rolling

basis, of a rule designated as a minor rule violation

in the Procedure and Plan. With one exception, the

recommended dollar amounts are as follows: First

Violation—$100; Second Violation—$500; Third

and Subsequent Violation—$1,000. For violations

of Article XI, Rule 4 (Financial and Operational

Reports) the recommended fines will be those

currently set forth in Interpretation and Policy .02

to such rule (i.e., 1–30 days late—$100; 31–60 days

late—$200; 61–90 days late—$400).

16Under the Plan, the Exchange may make

additions to, deletions from, or other modifications

to the list of rule violations that constitute minor

rule violations under the Plan. SEC Rule 19d–

1(c)(2) requires that the SEC approve by order, after

appropriate notice of the terms of substance of the

XII, Rule 9 as Article XII, Rule 10.8

Amendment No. 2 adds a number of

clarifications to the Procedure, amends

the Recommended Fine Schedule, and

revises the Plan to provide a method for

modifying the list of rule violations that

constitute minor rule violations under

the Plan.9 Amendment No. 3 revises the

Procedure by removing the President of

the CHX from any role in the imposition

or setting aside of fines under the

Procedure and further amends the

Recommended Fine Schedule.10

Amendment No. 3 also revises the

Procedure and Plan by removing seven

rule violations from the list of rule

violations that would be designated

minor rule violations under the

Procedure and Plan and clarifies the

operation of four other rules on such

list.11 Amendment No. 4 revises the

Procedure to provide for the imposition

of a fine under the Procedure in the

event the Staff disagrees with the Minor

Rule Violation Panel’s recommendation

that the Exchange commence a formal

disciplinary proceeding, and amends

language from Amendment No. 2 in

light of changes to the Procedure

contained in Amendment No. 3.12

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of

and basis for the proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose 13

As amended, the Procedure

authorizes the Exchange, in lieu of

commencing a disciplinary proceeding,

to impose a fine, not to exceed $2,500,

on any member, member organization,

associated person or registered or nonregistered employee of a member or

member organization for any violation

of an Exchange rule which the Exchange

determines to be minor in nature. The

Committee on Floor Procedure will have

the same authority for violations

relating to decorum on the Exchange

trading floor. The Procedure specifically

states that the Committee on Floor

Procedure and the Panel shall not,

collectively, impose more than one fine

pursuant to the Procedure relating to the

same underlying violation and incident.

If the fine is to be imposed by the

Exchange (as opposed to the Committee

on Floor Procedure) the fine shall be

imposed in accordance with the method

set forth in paragraph (b) of the

Procedure. Specifically, prior to

imposing the fine, the staff of the

Exchange shall present the facts

supporting such violative conduct to a

Minor Rule Violation Panel (‘‘Panel’’),

which shall consist of three floor

members (one member of the Committee

on Floor Procedure, one member of the

Committee’s Rules Subcommittee, and

one member not on the Committee or

any of its subcommittees) appointed by

the President of the Exchange. The

Panel is then authorized either to

impose the fine, reject the staff’s

recommendation, or recommend that

the Exchange commence a formal

disciplinary proceeding under Article

XII of the CHX rules. In the event that

the Panel recommends that the

Exchange commence a formal

disciplinary proceeding, the staff shall

either issue a report to the President, in

accordance with Article XII, Rule 1(a),

recommending that formal charges be

brought, or advise the Panel that the

staff will not recommend that the

Exchange commence a formal

disciplinary proceeding. If the staff

decides not to recommend the

commencement of a formal disciplinary

proceeding, the panel is required to

impose a fine in accordance with the

provisions of the Procedure.

If a fine is to be imposed under the

Procedure, the Exchange will serve a

written statement on the person against

whom a fine is imposed setting forth the

rule violated, the act or omission

constituting the violation, the fine

imposed and the date of imposition, the

date the fine must be paid and the date

by which such determination must be

contested, such date to be not less than

15 days after the date of service of the

written statement.

If the person against whom a fine is

imposed pursuant to the Procedure

chooses not to contest the matter and

pays the fine, he or she waives his or her

right to a disciplinary proceeding under

Article XII of the Exchange’s rules and

any right to review or appeal (to the

extent such right would otherwise exist

under current Exchange rules).

Alternatively, any person may choose to

contest a fine by submitting a written

answer, at which point the matter

becomes a ‘‘disciplinary proceeding’’

subject to the applicable provisions of

Article XII, including all disciplinary

sanctions available thereunder (except

for contests of a fine by the Committee

on Floor Procedure, which will be

subject to the provisions of Article XII,

Rule 3).14

Under the Procedure, the Exchange

will periodically prepare and announce

to its members and member

organizations a list of Exchange rules

and policies as to which the Exchange

may impose fines pursuant to the

Procedure as well as the fines that may

be imposed for their violation.15 The

Procedure, however, expressly states

that the Exchange is not required to

impose a fine under the Procedure with

respect to any violation of any rule

included on such list. In addition,

whenever the Exchange determines that

a rule violation is not minor in nature,

it has the discretion to commence

disciplinary proceedings under Article

XII of the CHX rules.

The Exchange also proposes to adopt,

pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Act

and Rule 19d–1(c)(2) thereunder, a Plan

for the reporting of minor rule

violations. Under its Plan, the Exchange

designates certain specified rule

violations as minor rule violations 16
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices 19109

filing or a description of the subjects and issues

involved and opportunity for interested persons to

submit written comment, any amendment to an

exchange’s minor rule violation reporting plan

submitted under such rule. In this regard, the Plan

provides that every filing of a proposed rule change

by the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b) of the

Act and Rule 19b–4 thereunder that adds to, deletes

from or otherwise modifies the list of rule violations

contained in Article XII, Rule 9(h) of the CHX rules

for which the Article XII, Rule 9 Procedure may be

used will be deemed a request by the Exchange for

SEC approval to modify the list of CHX rules that

are designated minor rule violations for purposes of

the Exchange’s SEC Rule 19d–1(c)(2) reporting plan.

17The Exchange’s quarterly report to the SEC will

include: the CHX’s internal file number for the case,

the name of the individual and/or organization, the

nature of the violation, the specific rule provision

violated, the fine imposed, the number of times the

rule violation has occurred, and the date of

disposition.

18 See supra note 8.

19Specifically, the seven proposed minor rule

violations that were removed from the Procedure

and Plan are the following: Article VII, Rule 9

(Transactions Off the Floor); Article XXX, Rule 4

(The Specialist’s Book); Article VIII, Rule 11,

(Submission of Books to Board); Article XXX, Rule

22 (Stop Orders); Article XXXIV, Rule 4 (Trading

from Off the Floor); Article XX, Rule 7 (Recognized

Quotations); and Article XX, Rule 23 (Agency Cross

Rule).

20The only violation of this rule that may be

considered a minor rule violation is a failure of a

specialist to properly time-stamp an order ticket

entrusted to him or it.

21The provision of this rule that may be

considered a minor rule violation is the provision

that states that although oral bids and offers in

securities in the cabinet are permitted, they cannot

conflict with bids and offers resident in the cabinet.

A violation of this provision would occur if a floor

broker fails to ‘‘clear the cabinet’’ (i.e., fails to

satisfy bids or offers in the cabinet) before effecting

an agency cross in a cabinet security at the same

price or a price worse than the price of the bid or

offer resident in the cabinet.

22The only portion of this rule that is considered

a minor rule violation is the prohibition on a

specialist trading for his or its own account ahead

of customer orders on the specialist’s book.

23The only violation of this rule that may be

considered a minor rule violation is a specialist’s

failure to fill an incoming ITS commitment to the

fullest extent possible based on orders in the

specialist’s book.

24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).

26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and (d)(1).

27See Letter from C. Philip Curley, Attorney,

Robinson Curley & Clayton, P.C., to Margaret H.

McFarland, Deputy Secretary, SEC, dated January 5,

1996; Letter from C. Philip Curley, Attorney,

Robinson Curley & Clayton, P.C., to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated March 7, 1996 (‘‘March

7, 1996 Comment Letter’’).

28The SEC notes that the March 7, 1996 Comment

Letter was submitted in response to the March 4,

1996 CHX Letter. The two comment letters received

by the SEC regarding the CHX’s proposal and the

March 4, 1996 CHX Letter was available in the

SEC’s public reference room in File No. SR–CHX–

95–25.

and requests that it be relieved of the

current reporting requirement of Rule

19d–1(c)(1) under the Act regarding

such violations, provided it gives notice

of such violations to the Commission on

a quarterly basis.17 The Plan, however,

would not cover any fine imposed

pursuant to the Procedure that is

contested. Such violations and fines

would continue to be reported as they

occur.

In the original rule filing, the

Exchange proposed a list of rule and

policy violations that would be

designated minor rule violations in both

its Procedure and Plan.18 As amended

by the Exchange, seven violations are

removed from such list,19 and the

operation of the following four rule

violations that are subject to the

Procedure and Plan is clarified: Article

XXX, Rule 11 (Record of Orders); 20

Article XX, Rule 11 (Cabinet

Securities); 21 Article XXX, Rule 2

(Precedence to Orders in Book); 22 and

Article XXX, Rule 3 (Precedence Solely

on Competitive Basis).23

The purpose of the Procedure is to

provide a more appropriate response to

certain rule violations. At the present

time, when the staff of the CHX

discovers a technical, inadvertent, or

otherwise minor rule violation, often,

the Exchange’s only practical response

is to issue a written letter of caution to

the person(s) involved, focusing

attention on the necessity of fully

complying with all Exchange rules and

policies and warning against future

violations. Such written admonitions,

however, may not always successfully

deter future violations. The other

alternative, the initiation of a formal

disciplinary proceeding may, in many

cases, be too time consuming, too costly,

and carry too severe a penalty for such

minor violations. The ability to impose

a fine on a discretionary basis may

constitute a more effective deterrent

than a cautionary letter while avoiding

the severe penalty or attendant publicity

of a disciplinary hearing. The Procedure

provides for an appropriate response to

minor rule violations of certain

Exchange rules while preserving the due

process rights of the party accused

through specified, required procedures.

The purpose of the Plan is to provide

the CHX with the flexibility to fashion

reporting requirements that would

result in the Commission receiving the

necessary information regarding minor

rule violations in the least burdensome

way possible.

2. Statutory Basis

The proposed rule change is

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act 24 and will advance the objectives of

Section 6(b)(6) of the Act 25 in that it

will provide a procedure whereby

members can be ‘‘appropriately

disciplined’’ in those instances when a

rule violation is minor in nature, but a

sanction more serious than a warning or

cautionary letter is appropriate. In

accordance with Sections 6(b)(7) and

6(d)(1) of the Act,26 the proposed rule

change provides a fair procedure for

imposing such sanctions. Finally, the

proposed plan is consistent with

Section 6(d)(1) of the Act and Rule 19d1(c)(2) thereunder, which authorizes

self-regulatory organizations to adopt

minor rule violation reporting plans.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose a

burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members Participants, or Others

The Exchange understands that the

Commission has received comments on

SR–CHX–95–25 and Amendment No 1.

thereto.27 The Exchange believes that

issues raised by the commenter are

addressed herein, and in a letter from

George T. Simon, Attorney, Foley &

Lardner, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,

Commission, dated March 4, 1996

(‘‘March 4, 1996 CHX Letter’’).28

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register or

within such longer period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date 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 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.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. 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
19110 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

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 at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–CHX–95–25

and should be submitted by May 21,

1996.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–10584 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD 96–020]

Application for Recertification of

Prince William Sound Regional

Citizens’ Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces

the availability of the application for

recertification submitted by the Prince

William Sound Regional Citizens’

Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) for July

1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. The

application may be reviewed at the

PWSRCAC office, 750 W. 2nd Ave.,

Suite 100, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501–

2168, between the hours of 8 a.m. and

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is (907) 277–7222. The Coast Guard

seeks comments on the application from

interested groups. The Coast Guard will

publish a later notice in the Federal

Register to notify the public of its

decision regarding the recertification

request.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Commandant (G–MRO–1), ATTN: J.

Jackson, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20593–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mrs. Janice Jackson, Response

Operations Division, (202) 267–0500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker

Environmental Oversight and

Monitoring Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732)

(the Act), the Coast Guard may certify,

on an annual basis, on alternative

voluntary advisory group in lieu of

Regional Citizens’ Advisory councils for

Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound

Alaska. The Coast Guard published

guidelines on December 31, 1992, to

assist groups seeking recertification

under the Act (57 FR 62600). The Coast

Guard issued a policy statement on July

7, 1993, (58 FR 36505), to clarify the

factors that the Coast Guard would be

considering in making its determination

as to whether advisory groups should be

certified in accordance with the Act;

and the procedures which the Coast

Guard would follow in meeting its

certification responsibilities under the

Act.

The Coast Guard has received an

application for recertification of

PWSRCAC, the currently certified

advisory group for the Prince William

Sound region. In accordance with the

review and certification process

contained in the policy statement, the

Coast Guard announces the availability

of that application. It solicits comments

from interested groups including oil

terminal facility owners and operators,

owners and operators of crude oil

tankers calling at the terminal facilities,

and fishing, aquacultural, recreational

and environmental citizens groups,

concerning the recertification

application of PWSRCAC. At the

conclusion of the comment period, the

Coast Guard will review all application

materials and comments received and

will take one of the following actions:

(a) Recertify the advisory group under

33 U.S.C. 2732(o).

(b) Issue a conditional recertification

for a period of 90 days, with a statement

of any discrepancies which must be

corrected to qualify for recertification

for the remainder of the year.

(c) Deny recertification of the advisory

group if the Coast Guard finds that the

group is not broadly representative of

the interests and communities in the

area or is not adequately fostering the

goals and purposes of the Act.

The Coast Guard will notify

PWSRCAC by letter of the action taken

on its application. A notice will be

published in the Federal Register to

advise the public of the Coast Guard’s

determination.

Dated: April 23, 1996.

G.N. Naccara,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Field

Activities Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 96–10558 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circular 21–20B, Supplier

Surveillance Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of Advisory Circular 21–

20B, Supplier Surveillance Procedures.

Advisory Circular 21–20B provides

information and guidance concerning an

acceptable means, but not the only

means, of demonstrating compliance

with the requirements of Federal

Aviation Regulations Part 21,

Certification Procedures for Products

and Parts, regarding Supplier

Surveillance Procedures.

ADDRESSES: Copies of AC 21–20B can be

obtained from the following: U.S.

Department of Transportation,

Subsequent Distribution Office,

Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q

75th Ave, Landover MD 20785.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 22,

1996.

Frank Paskiewicz,

Acting Manager, Production and

Airworthiness Certification Division.

[FR Doc. 96–10672 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

(DOT), Federal Aviation

Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice lists those forms,

reports, and recordkeeping requirements

imposed upon the public which were

transmitted by the Department of

Transportation to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

emergency processing clearance by May

3, 1996.

DATES: April 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

DOT information collection requests

should be forwarded, as quickly as

possible, to Edward Clarke, Office of

Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, Room 10202,

Washington, D.C. 20503. If you

anticipate submitting substantive

comments, but find that more than 30

days from the date of publication are

needed to prepare them, please notify

the OMB official of your intent

immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the DOT information

collection requests submitted to OMB