Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices 21517

3Section 17(b) applies to a specific proposed

transaction, rather than an ongoing series of future

transactions. See Keystone Custodian Funds, 21

S.E.C. 295, 298–99 (1945). Section 6(c), along with

section 17(b), is frequently used to grant relief from

section 17(a) to permit an ongoing series of

transactions. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)

company involved; and (c) the proposed

transaction is consistent with the

general provisions of the Act.

Applicants request an exemption under

sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit the

Public Funds to purchase shares of the

Small Cap Fund, and the Small Cap

Fund to redeem such shares.3

Applicants believe that the proposed

transactions meet the standards of

sections 6(c) and 17(b).

Applicants’ Conditions

Applicants agree that any order of the

SEC granting the requested relief shall

be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Public Funds and the Small

Cap Fund will be part of the same

‘‘group of investment companies,’’ as

defined in rule 11a–3 under the Act.

2. The Small Cap Fund shall not

acquire securities of any other

investment company in excess of the

limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A)

of the Act.

3. A majority of the trustees of the

Public Funds will not be ‘‘interested

persons,’’ as defined in section 2(a)(19)

of the Act.

4. VKACAM will not charge any

advisory fee for managing the Small cap

Fund.

5. Any sales charges or service fees

charged with respect to securities of the

Public Funds, when aggregated with any

sales charges or service fees paid by the

Public Funds with respect to securities

of the Small Cap Fund, shall not exceed

the limits set forth in Article II, section

26, of the Rules of Fair Practice of the

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc.

6. Applicants agree to provide the

following information, in electronic

format, to the Chief Financial Analyst of

the SEC’s Division of Investment

Management: monthly average total

assets for each Public Fund’s portfolio

and the Small Cap Fund’s portfolio;

monthly purchases and redemptions

(other than by exchange) for each Public

Fund’s portfolio and the Small Cap

Fund’s portfolio; annual expense ratios

for each Public Fund’s portfolio and the

Small Cap fund’s portfolio; and a

description of any vote taken by the

shareholders of the Small Cap Fund,

including a statement of the percentage

of votes cast for and against the proposal

by the Public funds and by any other

shareholders of the Small Cap Fund if

any. Such information will be provided

as soon as reasonably practicable

following each fiscal year-end of each of

the Public Funds (unless the Chief

Financial Analyst shall notify

applicants in writing that such

information need no longer be

submitted).

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, under delegated

authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11671 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37169; File No. SR–NASD–

96–15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Relating to Schedule A to

the By-Laws To Amend the Allowable

Exclusions and Deductions From the

Definition of Gross Revenue for

Member Assessment Purposes

May 6, 1996.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on

April 4, 1996, the National Association

of Securities Dealers (‘‘NASD’’ or

‘‘Association’’) 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

prepared by the NASD. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

Following is the text of the proposed

rule change. Proposed new language is

italicized; deletions are in brackets.

NASD By-Laws

Schedule A

* * * * *

Section 5 Gross Revenue for

Assessment Purposes

(a) Gross revenue is defined for

assessment purposes as total income as

reported on FOCUS form Part II or IIA

with the following exclusions:

[• ] (1) Other income unrelated to

the securities business;

[• ] [Interest and dividends;]

[• ] (2) Commodities income;

[• ] (3) Advisory fees, investment

management fees and finders’ fees not

directly involving the offering of

securities; proxy fees; vault service fees;

safekeeping fees; transfer fees; and fees

for financial advisory services for

municipalities;

[• ] (4) Commissions derived from

transactions executed on a registered

national securities exchange or a foreign

securities exchange (Note 1);

[• ] (5) Profits or losses derived from

transactions of which both the purchase

and sale are executed on a registered

national securities exchange, including

arbitrage (Note 1); and

[• ] (6) Profits and losses derived

from transactions in certifications of

deposit and commercial paper, which is

defined to include drafts, bills of

exchange, and bankers acceptances.

(b) In addition, members may deduct:

[• ] (1) Any commissions,

concessions or other allowances paid to

another member in connection with the

execution or clearance of transactions

included in reported revenue. For

example, a member acting as a clearing

agent for another member shall deduct

net amounts allowed to the non-clearing

member; [and]

[• ] (2) 25% of gross wrap fees

charged to and received from customers

and paid or allocated to investment

managers or advisors[.]; and

[• ] (3) Interest and dividend

expense but not in excess of related

interest and dividend revenue or,

alternatively, the member may deduct

40% of interest earned by the member

on customer securities accounts;

provided, however in addition the

member may deduct the first $50,000 of

net interest and dividend revenue.

Note 1: Income not subject to exclusion

for members for whom the NASD is the

designated examining authority.

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.
21518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices

2 15 U.S.C. 78o–3.

3A copy of NTM 95–54 was submitted as Exhibit

2 to the NASD’s proposal and is available for

inspection and copying in the Commission’s Public

Reference Room.

4Copies of the comment letters were submitted as

Exhibit 3 to the NASD’s proposal and are available

for inspection and copying in the Commission’s

Public Reference Room.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

Gross revenue is defined for member

assessment purposes under Section 5 of

Schedule A to the NASD By-Laws

(‘‘Section 5’’) as total income reported

on FOCUS form Part II or IIA. Members,

however, are allowed certain

exclusions. Income derived from

interest and dividends is currently an

allowable exclusion under Section 5.

The NASD surveyed members’

FOCUS filings for 1994 and conducted

discussions with a number of member

firm representatives, from which the

NASD determined that, along with the

normal interest income from customer

margin accounts and interest and

dividends from trading and investment

positions, a significant portion of

interest revenue for certain members is

associated with the member’s trading

strategies involving, for example,

repurchase, reverse repurchase, and

stock loan/borrow transactions, which

are considered over-the-counter

revenues from the securities business.

The NASD is proposing to amend

Section 5 of Schedule A by deleting a

provision which currently allows a

member to exclude its interest and

dividends from gross revenue for

assessment purposes. The proposed rule

change, however, would add a new

provision to allow a member to deduct

from gross revenue for assessment

purposes either: (i) its interest and

dividend expenses but not in excess of

related interest and dividend revenue;

or, alternatively, (ii) 40% of interest

earned by the member on customer

securities accounts. The first deduction

is intended to allow the member to

subtract directly-related expenses from

interest and dividend revenue to be

included in the definition of gross

revenue. The alternative deduction is

intended to eliminate the potential for

inequitable allocation of assessments on

those members whose interest and

dividend revenue is obtained without

significant expenses related to trading

strategies, (e.g., if a member derives

interest revenue primarily from margin

accounts and finances this lending

through its own capital). It would also

be consistent with the assessment of

interest and dividend revenue by the

Securities Investor Protection

Corporation (‘‘SIPC’’), which permits an

alternative offset to gross interest and

dividend revenue consisting of 40% of

interest earned on customer securities

accounts. The proposed rule change, in

addition, would allow a member to

deduct from its gross revenue the first

$50,000 of net interest and dividend

revenue in order to continue to

encourage the accumulation of net

capital, particularly by smaller

members.

Based on NASD data, the NASD

estimates that the proposed rule change,

if adopted for 1995, would have

generated assessment revenue of $3

million based on the budgeted level of

assessment revenue of $39 million for

that year.

The proposed rule change would also

amend Section 5 to provide alphabetical

references to its two primary

subsections and by replacing all bullets

referencing its secondary subsections

with numerical references.

The NASD is proposing that the

proposed rule change take effect for the

1996 assessment based on revenues

generated in calendar year 1995.

2. Statutory Basis

The NASD believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the

Act 2 which requires that the rules of the

association provide for the equitable

allocation of reasonable dues, fees and

other charges among members in that

the proposed rule change would

recognize interest and dividend revenue

as a part of a member’s gross revenue for

assessment purposes, while recognizing

that expenses incurred in connection

with such interest and dividend revenue

should be allowed to be deducted from

such revenue (e.g. as part of ‘‘matched

transactions’’). It would also allow

members whose business incurs less

direct expense in connection with

interest and dividend revenue to

alternatively deduct 40% of interest

earned by the member on customer

securities accounts. It would, in

addition, allow members to deduct from

their gross revenue the first $50,000 of

net interest and dividend revenue for

assessment purposes in order to

continue to encourage the accumulation

of net capital. The proposed rule change

also would be consistent with the SIPC’s

assessment of such revenue.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The NASD published for comment in

Notice to Members 95–94 (October 27,

1995) (‘‘NTM 95–94’’) a proposal to

include net interest and dividends in

the definition of gross revenue for

assessment purposes under Section 5.3

One commentor argued that the

proposed rule change contained in NTM

95–94 discriminates against fixed

income firms which finance mostly

liquid collateral (i.e., governments and

mortgages) and will make the small,

match-book spreads of these firms even

smaller, thereby forcing certain firms to

move their match-book business and

proprietary trading accounts to a nonregulated entity. The commentor also

argued that the proposed rule change

would be unfair to small members

whose ratio of ‘‘other qualified revenue’’

to ‘‘revenue from sales of shares’’ may

be higher than large companies. The

NASD modified the proposed rule

change published for comment to

address such concerns by allowing a

member to choose from one of two

alternative deductions relating to its

interest and dividend revenue and, in

addition, to deduct from its gross

revenue the first $50,000 of net interest

and dividend revenue.

Based on the foregoing, the NASD

does not believe that the proposed rule

change will result in any burden on

competition that is not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

Twenty comment letters were

received in response to NTM 95–94.4 Of

the twenty commentors, four

commentors supported but expressed

certain concerns, and sixteen opposed

the proposed rule change. The

commentors are referenced by the

number attached to their comment letter

in the list of comment letters attached

at Exhibit 3.

1. Definition of Non-Securities Business

Revenue

Commentors (Nos. 1, 4, 11, 13, and

14) argue that dividends from a

member’s pure investment account are

not revenue generated from the

securities business but the fruit of hard

work from previous years. The NASD

believes that a member’s proprietary

investment account is retained business

capital maintained to generate gross

revenue for the member’s securities

business. Such proprietary accounts

play an integral part in the member’s

securities business and are subject to

NASD regulatory oversight. Revenue

from such proprietary accounts are part

of the member’s securities business and,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices 21519

therefore, are appropriate for inclusion

in the definition of gross revenue for

assessment purposes.

One insurance commentor (No. 12)

argues that it should only be assessed

for interest and dividend revenue

relating to the interest and dividends

attributable to the capital necessary to

operate its securities business. The

NASD’s position is that an insurance

company’s interest and dividend

revenue from its insurance business will

not be included in the definition of

gross revenue for assessment purposes.

2. Effect on Net Capital

Commentors (Nos. 1, 3, 4, 11 and 20)

argue that the NTM 95–94 proposal

would discourage members from

accumulating passive investments that

increase the firm’s net capital and

protect public investors. The NASD

amended the proposed rule change

contained in NTM 95–94 to address

such concerns by allowing a member to

deduct from its gross revenue the first

$50,000 of net interest and dividend

revenue in addition to allowing the

member to deduct one of two other

alternative deductions provided by the

proposed rule change.

3. Equitable Allocation of Dues, Fees

and Assessments

NTM 95–94 stated that the proposed

rule change was partially intended to

fund the increased costs associated with

implementing the recommendations of

the Rudman Committee. Commentors

(Nos. 1, 10, 12 and 19) argue that the

proposed rule change inequitably

allocates the regulatory costs resulting

from the Rudman Committee

recommendations to firms with

significant passive investments which

are not used by such firms in their

securities business. One commentor

recommends that, in order to equitably

allocate such Rudman Committee

related-costs, the NASD should

determine the interest assessment on a

firm-by-firm basis by considering such

factors as the firm’s standing with the

NASD, the historical audit performance,

the risks and liquidity associated with a

firm’s trading and collateral positions,

whether or not a firm has significant

customer or institutional business, and

the firm’s credit and risk management

policies.

The NASD notes that the proposed

rule change is only partially intended to

fund certain Rudman recommendations

and its overall intent is to fund the

NASD’s broader regulatory budget

requirements. The NASD believes that

using gross revenue for assessment

purposes has historically provided for

the equitable allocation of reasonable

assessments among members. The

proposed rule change’s inclusion of

interest and dividends from retained

capital and certain trading situations in

the definition of gross revenue is

appropriate because the NASD is

required to oversee the related-securities

activity. The proposed rule change,

therefore, is part of the same assessment

approach that has historically been

followed by the NASD and the

securities industry. The proposed rule

change, as already noted, would also be

consistent with current SIPC assessment

provisions. The NASD, therefore,

believes that the members’ arguments

for changing the basis of such

assessments are not justified.

4. Discrimination Against Certain

Members

As previously noted, one commentor

(No. 10) argues that the proposed rule

change contained in NTM 95–94

discriminates against fixed income firms

which finance mostly liquid collateral

(i.e., governments and mortgages) and

will make the small, match-book

spreads of these firms even smaller,

thereby forcing certain firms to move

their match-book business and

proprietary trading accounts to a nonregulated entity. The commentor also

argues that it would be unfair to small

members whose ratio of ‘‘other qualified

revenue’’ to ‘‘revenue from sales of

shares’’ is higher than large companies.

The NASD has modified the proposed

rule change published for comment to

address such concerns by allowing a

member to deduct from its gross

revenue the first $50,000 of net interest

and dividend revenue in addition to

allowing the member to deduct one of

two other alternative deductions

provided by the proposed rule change.

The NASD further believes that a

member could not use a non-regulated

entity to handle its U.S. match-book

business because this would subject

such an entity to registration as a

broker/dealer under Section 15 of the

Act. This would also be true for the

handling of the member’s proprietary

trading accounts.

5. Clearing Capital

Commentors (No. 6, 8, and 15)

expressed concerns regarding potential

assessments on their clearing capital.

Two commentors (6 and 8) argue that

members that put up clearing capital to

be in business should not be assessed on

the interest on this capital, or

alternatively assessed only on yearly

income above some amount, perhaps

$100,000. One commentor (No. 15) only

supports the proposed rule change

because it believes its security deposits

with clearing brokers would be exempt.

It is the position of the NASD that a

member’s clearing capital serves the

function of capital in any business, i.e.,

to run the business and increase gross

revenue for the business. Further, the

requirements for clearing capital are

subject to NASD regulatory oversight

and, therefore, justified for inclusion in

gross revenue for assessment purposes.

The NASD, however, has amended the

proposed rule change contained in NTM

95–94 to allow a member to deduct from

its gross revenue the first $50,000 of net

interest and dividend revenue in order

to address the concerns of smaller

members regarding this matter.

6. NASD Assessment Discounts

One Commentor (No. 19) argues that

the NASD currently ‘‘discounts’’

member assessments, presumably

because the current system, without

change, already provides more funds

than is necessary for operations. The

commentor, therefore, argues that the

NASD does not need a new funding

category. The NASD believes that its

practice of discounting member

assessments provides the NASD with

the flexibility to equitably return to its

members a portion of assessments

during business cycles wherein the

aggregate gross revenue of the securities

industry is normal or better, while

ensuring the NASD with sufficient

funds to meet the regulatory mandates

of the Act during business cycles in

which gross revenue of the securities

industry has significantly decreased.

This practice of discounting member

assessments has proven to be an

effective funding method for oversight

of the securities industry and, therefore,

has proven itself to be an important part

of the investor protections provided by

the NASD to the securities markets. In

addition, the NASD’s definition of gross

revenue for assessment purposes should

equitably include all categories of

revenue from a member’s securities

business. The NASD believes that the

inclusion of net interest and dividend

revenue from the member’s retained

capital and trading strategies, in the

definition of gross revenue for

assessment purposes, is appropriate in

assessing all gross revenue from the

securities business regulated by the

NASD.

7. NASD SIPC Rationale

One commentor (No. 19) argues that

the administrative and compliance

activity of the NASD is separated too far

in its nature from the insurance activity

of the SIPC to provide a compelling

argument that NASD’s fund raising be

consistent with SIPC. The NASD notes
21520 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices

that in further conforming its

assessment policy to SIPC’s, the

Association is not intending to imply

that its business is equivalent to SIPC’s,

but rather that the proposed rule change

is based on assessment policy that has

already been found to be an equitable

allocation of reasonable assessments

among members of the securities

industry.

8. Net Interest Revenue Derived From

Exchange-Listed Securities

One commentor (No. 7) states that a

substantial amount of its net interest

revenue is derived from margin loans

secured by exchange-listed securities

and securities lending activities

involving exchange-listed securities.

The commentor notes that Schedule A,

Section 5 of the NASD By-Laws

excludes income from the sale of

exchange-listed securities, and

therefore, argues that net interest

revenue from such exchange listed

securities should also be excluded. The

commentor also notes that it would be

extremely difficult, if not impossible, to

break out net interest revenue as to its

source of origin, i.e., exchange versus

non-exchange securities. The NASD

believes that interest derived from

margin loans and securities lending

activities, involving exchange-listed

securities or customer accounts

including such securities, does not itself

represent an exchange transaction but

rather a regulated over-the-counter

transaction. Such non-exchange activity

is significantly different than the current

Section 5 exclusion from gross revenue

regarding member commissions, trading

or investment gains derived from

transactions executed on a registered

national securities exchange or a foreign

securities exchange. The NASD also

acknowledges and agrees with the

impracticality of segregating such

income between exchange and nonexchange business.

9. Request for NASD Audited Annual

Financial Income Statement and

Balance Sheet/Simplified Revenues

Assessment

Two commentors (Nos. 2 and 5) argue

that the NASD should provide a

detailed accounting to demonstrate the

need for additional revenues. One

commentor (No. 2) argues for an audited

annual financial income statement and

balance sheet of the NASD corporate

body to erase misperceptions that a

surplus may already exist. The NASD,

in response to the first comment, notes

that an audited financial accounting of

the association’s activities is provided

annually to the membership and the

interested public in the organization’s

annual report. With respect to the

second comment, the NASD maintains a

level of working capital and equity

which is prudent in its business

judgment in order to ensure that the

NASD is able to fulfill its regulatory

mandates.

One commentor (No. 2) argues that if

the need for additional assessment

revenues exists, then the additional

revenues can be obtained ‘‘by simply

increasing the current assessment by

7.7%.’’ The NASD believes it is more

appropriate and equitable to include

interest and dividends revenue in gross

revenue as provided by the proposed

rule change before increasing the

assessment percentage on gross revenue

for all members. The NASD believes

that the proposed rule change enhances

the equitable allocation of assessments

by adding certain interest and dividend

revenue derived from retained capital

and certain trading practices to the

definition of gross revenue for

assessment purposes.

A commentor (No. 5) argues that if the

need for additional revenue is shown to

be temporary, then the assessment

should be temporary. The NASD does

not intend the proposed rule change to

be temporary and notes that the purpose

of the proposed rule change is to meet

ongoing budgetary requirements.

10. Member Vote

One commenter (No. 1) argues that

the inclusion of any new revenue

category should be subject to

membership vote. The NASD notes that

Article VI, Section1 of the By-Laws

permits the Board of Governors to make

changes in member assessments without

recourse to the membership for

approval. This provision of the By-Laws

was adopted by the Board of Governors

and approved by the Commission as an

appropriate regulatory function of the

NASD under the Act. The proposed rule

change is, however, subject to

publication for comment by the SEC and

the SEC will exercise its independent

review function in determining whether

to approve or disapprove the proposed

rule change.

11. Other Comments

Four commentors (Nos. 9, 16, 17, and

18) supported the proposed rule change

contained in NTW 95–94 as providing

more consistent treatment of net interest

and dividend revenue. The commentors

argue, however, that since additional

revenue will be received by the NASD

under the proposed rule change, an

offset should take place through a

reduction in other member charges.

They argue that the proposed rule

change comes at a time when firms are

looking to eliminate costs, increase

efficiency and protect capital. Another

commentor (No. 3) argues that the

NASD should attempt to meet its

budgetary challenges as its membership

is doing, i.e., investigating more

efficient ways of accomplishing

objectives and cutting costs. The NASD

concurs with the latter commentor and

continues to address budgetary

challenges by increasing the efficiency

of oversight of the broker/dealer

industry. However, increased

efficiencies of NASD operations alone,

as suggested by the former commentors,

do not meet the budgetary challenges

required to fund the commitment of

greater resources to the NASD’s broker/

dealer regulation activities in

compliance with the regulatory mandate

of the Act, as amended.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

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 such 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

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 to

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the NASD. All

submissions should refer to the file

number in the caption above and should

be submitted by May 31, 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Notices 21521

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority, 17 CFR 200.30–(a)(12).

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11747 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2375]

Shipping Coordinating Committee,

Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea

Working Group on Fire Protection;

Notice of Meeting

The U.S. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

Working Group on Fire Protection will

conduct an open meeting on May 29,

1996, at 9:30 AM, in Room 4315, at U.S.

Coast guard Headquarters, 2100 Second

Street SW., Washington, DC 20593. The

purpose of the meeting will be to

prepare for discussions anticipated to

take place at the Forty-first Session of

the International Maritime

Organization’s Subcommittee on Fire

Protection, scheduled for September 30,

1996.

The meeting will focus on proposed

amendments to the 1974 SOLAS

Convention for the fire safety of

commercial vessels. Specific discussion

areas include: the new mandatory Fire

Test Procedures Code, proposed

restructuring of Chapter II–2, halon fire

extinguishing systems, emergency

escape breathing devices, fire-retardant

materials for fishing vessel lifeboats,

criteria for maximum fire loads, fire

safety measures for deep fat cooking

equipment, interpretations to SOLAS

74, role of the human element in

maritime casualties, safety of passenger

submersible craft, recognition of test

laboratories, fixed fire detection and

alarm systems for new and existing

cargo ships, and shipboard safety

emergency plans.

Interested members of the public are

encouraged to attend. For further

information regarding the meeting of the

SOLAS Working Group on Fire

Protection contact Mr. Jack Booth at

(202) 267–2997.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Charles A. Mast,

Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–11804 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements; Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

(DOT), Federal Aviation

Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (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

FAA requested and received an

emergency clearance through June 30,

1996 under OMB control number 2120–

0595. This request is for the three year

clearance. The ICR describes the nature

of the information collection and its

expected cost and burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAA

Hotline number (202) 267–7029, or the

Internet Home Page: http://

www.faa.gov/asu/asu100/acq-reform/

acqlhome.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Federal Aviation

Administration Acquisition

Management System (FAAMS).

Abstract: This document contains

policy guidance that implements the FY

1996 Transportation Appropriation Bill,

that gave FAA an exemption from

acquisition laws and provided authority

to create a flexible, more cost effective

system. Guidance is focused on the

acquisition management system, the life

cycle acquisition process, the

procurement system and process, and

an acquisition work force learning

system Acquisitions are handled by

integrated product teams who provide

support through all stages of the

process.

Need: Pursuant to section 348 of

Public Law 104–50, the FAA hereby

develops and implements a new

acquisition management system that

addresses the unique needs of the

agency. This document establishes the

policies, guiding principles, and

internal procedures for FAA’s new

acquisition system.

Respondents: The respondents are

individuals and businesses who do or

wish to do business under contract with

the FAA. We estimate approximately

3,300 respondents.

Frequency: The frequency is on

occasion and monthly with an estimated

1 to 12 responses per respondent.

Burden: The estimated burden is

333,292 hours annually. Comments on

this collection should be submitted to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office

Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., Washington,

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for

FAA.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 7,

1996.

Phillip A. Leach,

Clearance Officer, United States Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 96–11787 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Coast Guard

[CGD 96–019]

Waterfront Facilities; Marine

Transportation Related Pipeline

Testing

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

conducting a study to evaluate several

alternative methods, in addition to those

presently approved, for testing marine

transfer pipelines on facilities capable of

transferring oil or hazardous material, in

bulk, to or from a vessel with a capacity

of 250 barrels or more. These methods

may provide suitable alternatives for

facility operators while maintaining an

equivalent level of safety.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 9, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commandant (G–MCO–3), Port and

Facilities Compliance Branch, 2100

Second Street, SW, Washington, DC

20593–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant (junior grade) David Deaver,

Port and Facilities Compliance Branch,

Commandant (G–MCO–3), room 1104,

(202) 267–0502, between 7 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast

Guard is responsible for ensuring

compliance for marine transportation

related (MTR) facilities, including

requirements for transfer pipeline

systems. The scope of this study

concerns possible testing alternatives for

the transfer pipeline system from the

dock loading arm or manifold of the

Coast Guard inspected MTR facility up

to the first valve encountered after the

pipe enters the Spill Prevention Control

and Countermeasure (SPCC) area or the

first valve encountered after the pipe

enters the secondary containment