[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42127-42132]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16821]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69954; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing Amendment No. 2 to an Advance Notice, as
Previously Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Institute Supplemental
Liquidity Deposits to Its Clearing Fund Designed To Increase Liquidity
Resources To Meet Its Liquidity Needs

July 9, 2013.
    On March 21, 2013, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') advance notice SR-NSCC-2013-802 (``Advance Notice'')
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ thereunder.\3\ On April 19, 2013, NSCC filed with
the Commission Amendment No. 1 to the Advance Notice.\4\ The Advance
Notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in
the Federal Register on May 1, 2013.\5\ On May 20, 2013, the Commission
extended the period of review of the Advance Notice, as modified by
Amendment No. 1.\6\ As of July 9, 2013, the Commission had received
fourteen comment letters on the proposal contained in the Advance
Notice and its related Proposed Rule Change,\7\ including NSCC's
response to the comment letters received as of June 10, 2013.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ NSCC also filed the proposal contained in the Advance Notice
as proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2013-02 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
under Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. Release No. 34-69313
(Apr. 4, 2013), 78 FR 21487 (Apr. 10, 2013). On April 19, 2013, NSCC
filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change, which, on May 22,
2013, the Commission provided notice of and designated a longer
period of review for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1. Release No. 34-69620 (May 22, 2013),
78 FR 32292 (May 29, 2013). On June 11, 2013, NSCC filed Amendment
No. 2 to the Proposed Rule Change, which the Commission published
notice of with an order instituting proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change. Release No. 34-
69951 (July 9, 2013). The proposal in the Advance Notice, as
amended, and the Proposed Rule Change, as amended, shall not take
effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the
proposal are completed.
    \4\ See Release No. 34-69451 (Apr. 25, 2013), 78 FR 25496 (May
1, 2013).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Release No. 34-69605 (May 20, 2013), 78 FR 31616 (May 24,
2013). Absent a request by the Commission to NSCC to provide
additional information on the Advance Notice pursuant to Section
806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing Supervision Act, see 12 U.S.C.
5465(e)(1)(D), the Commission shall have until July 19, 2013 to
issue an objection or non-objection to the Advance Notice, as
amended. See Release No. 34-69605 (May 20, 2013), 78 FR 31616 (May
24, 2013), and see 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E) and (G).
    \7\ See Comments Received on File Nos. SR-NSCC-2013-02 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2013-02/nscc201302.shtml) and SR-NSCC-2013-
802 (http://sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2013-802/nscc2013802.shtml).
Since the proposal contained in the Advance Notice was also filed as
a Proposed Rule Change, see Release No. 34-69313, supra note 3, the
Commission is considering all public comments received on the
proposal regardless of whether the comments are submitted to the
Advance Notice, as amended, or the Proposed Rule Change, as amended.
    \8\ NSCC also received a comment letter directly prior to filing
the Advance Notice and related Proposed Rule Change with the
Commission, which NSCC provided to the Commission in Amendment No. 1
to the filings. See Exhibit 2 to File No. SR-NSCC-2013-802 (http://sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2013/34-69451-ex2.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act \9\
and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \10\ thereunder, notice is hereby given that on
June 11, 2013, NSCC filed with the Commission Amendment No. 2 to the
Advance Notice, as previously modified by Amendment No. 1.\11\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Advance
Notice, as modified by Amendment No. 2, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \11\ Defined terms that are not defined in this notice are
defined in Amended Exhibit 5 to the Advance Notice, available at
http://sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc.shtml, under File No. SR-NSCC-2013-
802, Additional Materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    The Advance Notice, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is a proposal
by NSCC to amend its Rules and Procedures (``Rules'') to provide for a
supplemental liquidity funding obligation (``SLD Proposal''), as
described below. NSCC filed Amendment No. 2 to the Advance Notice, as
previously modified by Amendment No. 1, in order to mitigate potential
cash outlay burdens, respond to transparency concerns raised by NSCC
members (``Members''), clarify the implementation timeframe, and
describe the reports that would be provided to Members so that they can
anticipate their supplemental liquidity obligations to NSCC under the
SLD Proposal (``Supplemental Liquidity Obligations'').

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice, as modified
by Amendment No. 2, and discussed any comments it received on the
Advance Notice, as amended. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) immediately below,
of the most significant aspects of these statements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC to primarily focus on the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act

1. Description of Change
Original SLD Proposal
    The original proposal contained in the Advance Notice, as modified
by Amendment No. 1 (``Original SLD Proposal''), would change the Rules
to add a new Rule 4A, in order to establish a supplemental liquidity
funding obligation designed to cover the liquidity exposure
attributable to those Members and families of affiliated Members
(``Affiliated Families'') that regularly incur the largest gross
settlement debits over a settlement cycle during both times of normal
trading activity (``Regular Activity Periods'') and times of increased
trading and settlement activity that arise around quarterly triple
options expiration dates (``Quarterly Options Expiration Activity
Periods'').

    The Supplemental Liquidity Obligation of a Member or Affiliated
Family with respect to a Regular Activity Period (``Regular Activity
Liquidity Obligation'') or a Quarterly Options Expiration Activity
Period (``Special Activity Liquidity Obligation'') would be imposed on
the 30 Members or Affiliated Families who generate the largest
aggregate liquidity needs over a settlement cycle that would apply in
the event of a closeout (i.e., over a period from date of default
through the following three settlement days), based upon a historical
look-back period.
    NSCC states that the calculations for both the Regular Activity
Liquidity Obligation and the Special Activity Liquidity Obligation are
designed so that NSCC has adequate liquidity resources to enable it to
settle transactions, notwithstanding the default of the Member or
Affiliated Family presenting the largest liquidity need during Regular
Activity Periods, as well as during Quarterly Options Expiration
Activity Periods. The Supplemental Liquidity Obligations imposed on
Members of Affiliated Families would be apportioned among the Members
in that Affiliated Family in proportion to the liquidity risk (or peak
exposure) they present to NSCC.
    NSCC states that the SLD Proposal is designed to supplement NSCC's
liquidity resources and work in tandem with NSCC's committed credit
facility (``Credit Facility''), which it maintains as a liquidity
resource (in addition to the NSCC Clearing Fund) should a Member or
Affiliated Family default. The Regular Activity Liquidity Obligations
would be calculated and imposed semi-annually, the first of which would
be made to coincide with the annual renewal of the Credit Facility and
the second of which would be made six months thereafter. NSCC states
that the SLD Proposal seeks to strike a balance between reliance on the
Credit Facility to reduce the burden on Members or Affiliated Families
for cash outlay, while at the same time obligating those Members or
Affiliated Families who expose NSCC to the largest liquidity risks to
fund their fair share of the liquidity ``differential.''
    NSCC states that the SLD Proposal contains both obligations and
incentives. For example, a cash deposit in respect of a Regular
Activity Liquidity Obligation (e.g., in the Original SLD Proposal, the
obligation of a Member or Affiliated Family to make a ``Regular
Activity Supplemental Deposit'') would be reduced by any liquidity such
Members or their affiliates provided as commitments under the Credit
Facility. To the extent that NSCC is successful in raising significant
amounts of its needed liquidity though the Credit Facility--whether
from Members, their affiliates making commitments on their behalf, or
non-affiliated lenders--NSCC states that a diversified lender facility
serves to mitigate the liquidity risk of NSCC and its membership as a
whole, while reducing the cash outlay obligations of the top 30 Members
and Affiliated Families.
    NSCC states that the cash deposit in respect of a Special Activity
Liquidity Obligation (``Special Activity Supplemental Deposit'') was
structured in the Original SLD Proposal to address any additional
liquidity shortfalls (i.e., over and above NCSS's other available
liquidity resources) that arose during the heightened trading activity
around the Quarterly Options Expiration Period. As such, these
additional Special Activity Supplemental Deposits would be required to
be maintained on deposit with NSCC only through the completion of the
related settlement cycle and for a few days thereafter.
    Both prior to the submission of the Advance Notice, and since, NSCC
states that it has engaged in significant outreach to its Members to
discuss the SLD Proposal, which outreach, NSCC believes, has been key
to the development and evolution of the SLD Proposal over the past 18
months. NSCC is cognizant of the concerns raised by Members who have
submitted comments regarding the Advance Notice and related Proposed
Rule Change, and, according to NSCC, this Amendment No. 2 seeks to
address those concerns.
Proposed Enhancements to the Original SLD Proposal
    NSCC is proposing to amend the Original SLD Proposal with
enhancements that NSCC believes are collectively designed to mitigate
potential cash outlay burdens, as well as respond to transparency
concerns raised by Members, by clarifying the implementation timeframe
of the proposed change and the reporting that would be provided to
Members under this revised SLD Proposal (``Revised SLD Proposal'').
    First, NSCC would allow its Members to designate a commercial
lender--whether or not affiliated with that Member--to commit as a
lender to the Credit Facility as a designee of the Member, subject to
satisfaction of reasonable lender criteria.\13\ NSCC states that this
commitment would reduce the Member's Regular Activity Liquidity
Obligation cash requirement by the amount of any such commitment.
Therefore, under the Revised SLD Proposal, NSCC states that all
Members, whether or not they have affiliated banks, are equally
incentivized to seek lenders to maximize the size of the Credit
Facility. NSCC states that this change effectively eliminates any
perceived discrimination in the Original SLD Proposal between those
Members that have bank affiliates and those that do not. This change is
reflected in the proposed Rule 4A by the inclusion of a new definition
for ``Designated Lender,'' and corresponding adjustments to the
calculation formula.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NSSC states that such criteria would be designed to cover
issues such as credit risk, concentration risk, and lender
diversity, so as to ensure the continued robust viability of the
line of credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, any ``excess'' Credit Facility commitments made by Members
directly or through their Designated Lenders (i.e., the amount of any
commitment by a Member or its Designated Lender that exceeds the
Member's calculated Regular Activity Liquidity Obligation) would be
allocated ratably among all Regular Activity Liquidity Providers, which
NSCC states would reduce their cash Regular Activity Supplemental
Deposit requirements, in the same way that commitments of non-
affiliated lenders are applied under the Original SLD Proposal. This
change is reflected in adjustments to the calculation formula in
Sections 5 and 9 of the proposed Rule 4A.
    Third, under the Revised SLD Proposal, the seasonal/peak facility
that NSCC believes currently addresses NSCC's liquidity needs over
Quarterly Options Expiration Activity Periods would be extended to
cover monthly options expiration periods and would be calculated and
collected 12 times a year instead of four (``Monthly Options Expiration
Activity Period''). NSCC states, based on its review of available
historical quantitative information, that the effect of this change
would be to reduce the size of the Regular Activity Liquidity
Obligations under the Revised SLD Proposal. Additionally, NSCC states
that by treating all liquidity obligations derived from Monthly Options
Expiration Activity Periods (where there is greater activity
fluctuation than during other periods) as Special Activity Liquidity
Obligations, the Revised SLD Proposal would provide greater stability
and predictability to the size of the Regular Activity Liquidity
Obligations. NSCC's analyses based upon historical data estimates that
expanding this seasonal/

peak facility to cover all Monthly Options Expiration Activity Periods
could reduce the size of the aggregate Regular Activity Liquidity
Obligations by up to 20 percent. NSCC also states that recalibrating
the Special Activity Liquidity Obligations on a monthly basis results
in allocating the liquidity burdens among those Members and Affiliated
Families more equitably, since only those Members whose monthly
options-related activity generate liquidity needs in excess of NSCC's
then available liquidity resources would be obligated to fund such
additional amounts.\14\ NSCC states that this change is reflected in a
revised definition of ``Options Expiration Activity Period,'' and
clarifications to the calculation formula of the Special Activity
Liquidity Obligations, as well as to related definitions to ensure the
formula--and the allocation among affected Members--operates as
intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NSCC states that since the allocation formula ratably
applies the excess amount needed due to activity during Special
Activity Periods based upon the affected Member's Special Activity
Peak Liquidity Exposure, then to the extent that a Member's Special
Activity Peak Liquidity Exposure (as defined) is less than or equal
to NSCC's other available resources, that Member's share of the
Special Activity Peak Liquidity Need will be zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Revised SLD Proposal includes a new definition for
``Other Qualifying Liquid Resources.'' NSCC states that this new
defined term would permit NSCC to take any such additional or
alternative liquidity resources that it may obtain in the future into
account when calculating Regular Activity Liquidity Obligations and to
use them to reduce the amount of cash, if any, that Members would
otherwise be obligated to deposit as Regular Activity Supplemental
Deposits. This change is reflected both with the inclusion of the new
definition of ``Other Qualifying Liquid Resources,'' and with
corresponding modifications to the calculation formula.
    Fifth, as regards Members' voluntarily prefunding Regular Activity
Liquidity Obligations and Special Activity Liquidity Obligations, NSCC
would monitor Members' prefunding activity to understand the impact
such prefunded amounts have on the amount of its committed liquidity
resources. NSCC states that the Revised SLD Proposal provides NSCC with
some discretion when including prefunded deposits within its calculated
liquidity resources, so as to provide some flexibility in the event it
becomes too reliant on voluntary prefunding to meet its minimum
liquidity needs. NSCC states that this change to the Original SLD
Proposal would address any concern that NSCC would not have sufficient
liquid resources to effect settlement if prefunding is unavailable when
actually needed.

Additional Revisions to the Original SLD Proposal

    Reporting. NSCC states that it understands and agrees that Members
have to be able to evaluate risks of their membership and be able to
plan for their liquidity obligations. NSCC also states that it is
critical that Members understand the risks that their own activity
presents to NSCC and be prepared to monitor their own activity and
alter their behavior if they want to minimize the liquidity risk they
present to NSCC. While NSCC states that robust reporting has always
been a key element of the Original SLD Proposal, the Revised SLD
Proposal clarifies in a new Section 31 of proposed Rule 4A the
information that NSCC would provide to Members. Such information would
be provided to all Members, not just the top 30 Members and Affiliated
Families, at least monthly. NSCC states that these reports would show
Members the liquidity exposure they present to NSCC to enable them to
monitor their activity and the ``Regular Activity Peak Liquidity
Exposure'' that results from their activity. Information provided in
these reports would include:
     The Regular Activity Peak Liquidity Exposure of the Member
on each Business Day of the preceding month;
     NSCC's largest Regular Activity Peak Liquidity Need for
the preceding month;
     in the case of an Unaffiliated Member, for each Business
Day of the preceding month, the percentage that the Regular Activity
Peak Liquidity Exposure of the Member bears to the aggregate Regular
Activity Peak Liquidity Exposures of all Regular Activity Liquidity
Providers (the percentage for a Member that is not a Regular Activity
Liquidity Provider for that month would be zero); and
     in the case of an Affiliated Family, for each Business Day
of the preceding month, the percentage that the aggregate Regular
Activity Peak Liquidity Exposures of all Members of that Affiliated
Family bears to the aggregate Regular Activity Peak Liquidity Exposures
of all Regular Activity Liquidity Providers (Affiliated Families that
are not Regular Activity Liquidity Providers for that month would be
zero percentage).
    Technical Clarifications and Changes. The Revised SLD Proposal
includes certain technical changes and clarifications that NSCC states
it designed to align notice, payment, and cash return timeframes, and
to clarify the operation of the calculation formulas to ensure they
operate as intended.
    Implementation Timeframe and Funding Notice. While the SLD Proposal
would be effective upon the completion of all required regulatory
approvals, Members would not be obligated to fund their Regular
Activity Liquidity Obligations or Special Activity Liquidity
Obligations until the Monthly Options Expiration Activity Period in
September 2013. Moreover, Members would be provided with notice of
their initial Regular Activity Liquidity Obligations no later than 30
days prior to the date on which that amount must be deposited with
NSCC. At that time, NSCC's risk management staff would also provide to
affected Members their Special Activity Peak Liquidity Exposure within
the look-back period. Specific implementation dates would be provided
by NSCC by Important Notice.
    NSCC states that its risk management staff would continue to work
with Members to help them understand the Revised SLD Proposal and to
develop tools that NSCC believes would enable Members to forecast the
liquidity exposure they present to NSCC. NSCC states that its risk
management staff would also use the reports that would be provided
under new Section 31 or proposed Rule 4A to guide ongoing discussions
with Members regarding the types of actions that could mitigate those
Members' peak liquidity exposure. In addition, under the Revised SLD
Proposal (as in the Original SLD Proposal), NSCC states that Members
would be able to manage their exposures by making prefund deposits
where they project their own activity would increase their liquidity
exposure. For example, if a Member that would be a Special Activity
Liquidity Provider anticipates that its Special Activity Peak Liquidity
Exposure at any time during a particular Options Expiration Activity
Period would be greater than the amount calculated by NSCC, then it
could make an additional cash deposit to the Clearing Fund (in excess
of its Required Deposit) that it designates as a ``Special Activity
Prefund Deposit.''
    In order to give Members sufficient time to plan for annual Credit
Facilities renewals and to line up designated liquidity providers for
the Credit Facility, NSCC states that its risk staff would provide
Members with an impact analysis of their projected Supplemental
Liquidity Obligations beginning on

November 31 of each year.\15\ NSCC states that the information provided
would show the potential impact on affected Members based on different
Credit Facility funding levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NSCC states that given the timing of the calculation look-
back periods, information provided in November will necessarily be
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the more general concern regarding refinancing risk
and NSCC's reliance on the Credit Facility, NSCC states that it would
continue to explore additional financing sources. NSCC states that it
would review and evaluate the financing options available to it and the
related costs of those options, and would expect to present the
findings of that review to the NSCC Board prior to the next renewal of
the Credit Facility in May 2014. When sizing and approving the fee and
costs structure of the renewal Credit Facility, NSCC states that the
NSCC Board would be able to take into account those potential
additional financing sources and consider the consequent impact on
Members' cash Regular Activity Supplemental Deposit and Special
Activity Supplemental Deposit obligations. The items that would be
included in this review are:
     Analysis of the availability, size, cost, and credit risk
necessary to obtain the additional commitments under the Credit
Facility likely to reduce the Regular Activity Supplemental Deposit
requirements to zero;
     analysis of the availability, size, cost, and credit risk
to obtain a new multi-year committed facility to replace the existing
Credit Facility;
     an understanding of the aggregate costs, if any, for
Members to designate commercial lenders to commit to the Credit
Facility as their designees;
     analysis of the availability, size, cost, and potential
depth of a capital markets funding among Members and/or third parties
as an additional liquidity resource, including the viability of
offering the funding to Members or mandating their participation in
such funding; and
     a summary of the steps that Members have taken to reduce
their NSCC liquidity profile, and whether this should be factored into
the historical analysis used to determine NSCC's Regular Activity
Period liquidity needs and Members' share of that need.
    NSCC states that it would update its Members on the results of this
review and the determination of the NSCC Board. NSCC states that it
would also update its Members with information regarding future
liquidity initiatives designed to increase NSCC's liquidity resources
and potentially reduce supplemental deposit requirements, including the
rationale behind these initiatives, how these initiatives fit within
NSCC's liquidity risk tolerance, and the likely impact of the
initiatives.
    NSCC states that the Revised SLD Proposal contributes to NSCC's
goal of ensuring that NSCC has adequate liquidity resources to meet its
settlement obligations, notwithstanding the default of its Members or
Affiliated Families that pose the largest aggregate liquidity exposure
over the relevant settlement cycle, as required by Commission Rule
17Ad-22(b)(3).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Anticipated Effect on Management of Risk
    As described above, NSCC is proposing to amend the Advance Notice,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, in order to mitigate potential cash
outlay burdens, and respond to transparency concerns raised by Members
by clarifying the implementation timeframe of the SLD Proposal and the
reporting that would be provided to Members under the SLD Proposal.
NSCC believes that the SLD Proposal, as amended hereby, has been
designed to ameliorate any unintended impact on competition that may be
perceived, and it does not believe that the proposed amendments change
the anticipated effect on and management of risk, as described in the
original Advance Notice filed by NSCC on March 21, 2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Release No. 34-69451 (Apr. 25, 2013), 78 FR 25496 (May
1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Comments on Competition

1. Competition Concerns Raised by Commenters
    Bank Affiliates. NSCC states that some commenters raised concerns
on competition grounds that the Original SLD Proposal permitted Members
and Affiliated Families with bank affiliates to reduce or potentially
eliminate their required cash Required Activity Supplemental Deposits
by the amounts of the commitments of such bank affiliates under the
Credit Facility while Members and Affiliated Families without bank
affiliates could not do so. As indicated above, NSCC states that this
limitation to bank affiliates has been eliminated from the SLD
Proposal. NSCC states that any Member or Affiliated Family could
designate a Designated Lender and receive an offset for the commitment
of such Designated Lender.
    The Top 30 Cut-Off. NSCC states that some commenters raised
concerns on competition grounds that Supplemental Liquidity Obligations
are only imposed on the 30 largest Members and Affiliated Families
rather than on the entire membership. NSCC states that, based on an
analysis of Members, NSCC made a business determination that the top 30
Members or Affiliated Families would most appropriately capture the
liquidity exposure over and above available NSCC Clearing Fund
liquidity. NSCC states that its liquidity analyses show that the
liquidity requirements attributable to the top 30 Members and
Affiliated Families account for the vast majority of NSCC's liquidity
needs. According to NSCC, as of the end of February 2013, the top 30
Members and Affiliated Families represented approximately 85% of the
total membership by peak liquidity needs over the prior six-month
period. NSCC states that the analyses also show that the remaining
membership's peak liquidity demands are covered by the required
deposits to the NSCC Clearing Fund. Therefore, NSCC states the SLD
Proposal appropriately places the burden of providing liquidity on
those Members and Affiliated Families who present the largest liquidity
risk. While NSCC does not believe it would be appropriate to require
the entire membership to bear the burden of the liquidity needs that
are generated by NSCC's largest trading firms, it does note that all
Members currently do bear the cost of the Credit Facility as an
operating expense that NSCC factors into its overall fee structure, as
well as their share of the NSCC Clearing Fund. NSCC states that as a
whole, NSCC believes this collective liquidity funding approach
represents a fair apportionment of NSCC's aggregate liquidity needs
amongst its membership.
    Impact on a Sector of the Market. NSCC states that some commenters
raised concerns on competition grounds that the SLD Proposal may cause
increased concentration of clearing activity by requiring smaller firms
to clear through larger financial institutions. NSCC states that
implicit in these comments is a concern that smaller, less well-
capitalized firms have less access to funding than do larger, well
capitalized firms. NSCC states, however, that no Member, because of its
low capital business model or limited access to funding, should have
the right to impose on NSCC (and the rest of the membership) the burden
of bearing the risks of that Member's clearing activities. Moreover,
NSCC states that the SLD Proposal provides incentives for Members to
manage the liquidity risks of their business; by doing so they

could reduce the share of their obligation under the SLD Proposal.
    NSCC also states that some commenters claim that the risk posed by
brokers with business in mostly agency-based transactions was
overstated by NSCC in crafting the SLD Proposal because those firms
settle transactions on a delivery-versus-payment (``DVP'') basis. NSCC
states, however, that agency brokers that execute market transactions
that clear at NSCC are obligated, as principals, to settle those
transactions at NSCC irrespective of whether their institutional
customers complete the institutional delivery DVP side of the
transaction (which occurs outside of NSCC). According to NSCC, it, as
the central counterparty, remains obligated to complete the other side
of the market transaction if the agency broker fails. NSCC states that
institutional customers of the agency brokers are not NSCC Members and
have no contractual obligation with NSCC to complete those trades if
the agency broker fails. Therefore, NSCC states that if an agency
broker fails, NSCC (and its other Members) face the risk that the
institutional customer will take its own market action, and NSCC will
incur the liquidity obligation of completing the market settlement.
NSCC states that it must consider this risk in crafting its risk
management strategies, and agency brokers are not immune from the risk
of failure, as recent events have shown that they, like other firms,
remain subject to market events, as well as technology and other risks.
    NSCC states that these comments raise a concern that Members are
being asked share the burden of funding the liquidity needs that are
dependent on the actions, including trading levels, of other Members,
and thus the amounts are not within the contributing Member's control.
NSCC states that from a fairness perspective, however, that
proportionate share of the affected Member's liquidity burden (whether
it be an agency broker or otherwise) would always be less than the
Member's own peak liquidity needs, and each Member is in the best
position to monitor and manage the liquidity risks presented by its own
activity.
2. Modifications to the Proposed Change Address Competition Concerns
    NSCC is an operating subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation (``DTCC''), which NSCC states is a user-owned, user-
governed holding company for NSCC, two other registered clearing
agencies, a derivatives clearing organization joint venture, and a
number of other companies that provide a variety of post-trade
processing and information services. NSCC states that it and the other
registered clearing agencies in the DTCC group provide the critical
infrastructure for the clearance and settlement of securities
transactions in the United States. These registered clearing agencies
operate as utilities for their users, allowing such users to compete
against each other (for the benefit of their retail and institutional
customers) on the basis of performance and price and not on the basis
of any relative advantage with respect to clearing and settlement
services.
    As a clearinghouse for securities transactions and a central
counterparty, NSCC states that it has no reason, interest, or intent to
discriminate among its Members--certainly not to give any of its
Members a competitive advantage or impose on any of its Members a
competitive disadvantage in their operations. NSCC states that although
it strives for complete neutrality in its interface with Members, it
may be that clearing agency rules of general application to all Members
could have a disparate effect on Members with diverse business models
and strategies. NSCC states that any such disparate effects arising out
of choices made by individual Members in terms of their business models
and strategies (including their relative levels of capitalization)
should not be seen as due to action by the clearing agency having an
impact or imposing a burden on competition.
    Although NSCC states that it is always mindful of the effect that
its Rules may have on individual Members, NSCC states that it must also
be concerned with (i) the interests of its membership as a whole, (ii)
its general obligations under Section 17A(b)(3) of the Exchange Act
``to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions'' and ``to safeguard securities and funds in its custody
or control,'' and (iii) the particular requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(3) relating to the financial resources that a clearing agency
which is a central counterparty (like NSCC) must maintain to cover the
default of the participant family presenting the largest exposure to
the clearing agency in extreme but plausible market conditions.
    NSCC states that these concerns and the interests of its Members,
including their interests relating to issues of competition and the
effect of the proposed change on competition among Members and between
Members and other financial market participants, can be reconciled.
But, NSCC states that individual Members that may be affected by the
proposed change--designed to assure that NSCC has the liquidity it
needs to safely operate a clearing and settlement business and meet its
obligations as a registered clearing agency and central counterparty
under the Exchange Act--must also recognize that some accommodation may
be required on their part.
    Nevertheless, in response to comments submitted on the proposed
change in the form in which it was originally filed in the Advance
Notice, and dialogue with a number of other Members who did not submit
comments but otherwise provided their input to NSCC, NSCC states that
it has revised the proposed change in a number of respects that bear
upon the issue of competition and whether the proposed change would
have an impact or impose any burden on competition.
    First, the Original SLD Proposal provided that a Regular Activity
Liquidity Provider would receive an offset against its Regular Activity
Liquidity Obligation for the amount of its commitment and the
commitment of any affiliate of the Regular Activity Liquidity Provider
under the Credit Facility. The Revised SLD Proposal provides that a
Regular Activity Liquidity Provider would receive an offset against its
Regular Activity Liquidity Obligation for the amount of its commitment,
the commitment of any affiliate, and the commitment of any Designated
Lender of the Regular Activity Liquidity Provider under the Credit
Facility. As a result, NSCC states that any distinction between Members
with bank affiliates and Members without bank affiliates, and any
perceived advantage for Members with bank affiliates over Members
without bank affiliates, has been eliminated.
    Second, the SLD Proposal has been refined to provide that a Regular
Activity Liquidity Provider would receive an offset against its Regular
Activity Liquidity Obligation for both (i) its pro rata share of the
commitments of lenders under the Credit Facility that are not Members
or their Designated Lenders and (ii) its pro rata share of the
commitments of Members and their Designated Lenders above the amounts
of their Regular Activity Liquidity Obligations. As a result of this
change, NSCC states that the obligation of Regular Activity Liquidity
Providers to provide Regular Activity Supplemental Deposits will be
ratably reduced by the amount of such ``excess.''
    Third, the Options Expiration Activity Period has been redefined to
mean the days around all monthly options

expiration dates (12 per year) rather than just triple options
expiration dates (four per year). As a result of this change, NSCC
states that more periods of increased activity would be excluded by
NSCC from the calculation of its Regular Activity Peak Liquidity Need,
thereby reducing the Regular Activity Liquidity Obligations of Regular
Activity Liquidity Providers.
    NSCC states that participation in the Credit Facility is available
to financial institutions that have the resources and operational
capabilities to be lenders under the Credit Facility, subject to
satisfaction of reasonable lender criteria. Although the Credit
Facility was renewed on May 14, 2013 for an additional term of 364
days, NSCC states that there are mechanisms in the Credit Facility to
increase the commitments of existing lenders and admit new lenders at
any time during the term. Accordingly, NSCC states that at the time
when the SLD Proposal becomes effective and before the time that any
Member may have to satisfy a Regular Activity Liquidity Obligation,
such Member would have an opportunity to either join the Credit
Facility itself as a lender (if it has the authority to be a lender) or
enter into arrangements with a bank to be its Designated Lender--in
either case thereby reducing or eliminating the need for it to make a
cash Regular Activity Supplemental Deposit to the Clearing Fund.
3. Impact on Competition
    NSCC states that for the reasons stated above, it believes the
changes that have been made to the Original SLD Proposal eliminate or
substantially ameliorate the impact that the SLD Proposal might have on
competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    While written comments on the Advance Notice, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, were not solicited, as noted above, NSCC engaged
significant outreach and discussion with affected Members in developing
the SLD Proposal.
    Written comments on the Advance Notice, as amended, have been filed
with the Commission and are available on the Commission's Web site.
NSCC states that this Amendment No. 2 addresses some of the issues
raised by those comments. NSCC's formal response to the written
comments has been submitted separately to the Commission in accordance
with the process for submitting comments.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The clearing agency may implement the proposed change pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Clearing Supervision Act \18\ if it has not
received an objection to the proposed change within 60 days of the
later of (i) the date that the Commission received the advance notice
or (ii) the date the Commission receives any further information it
requested for consideration of the notice. The clearing agency shall
not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection
to the proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date of receipt of the advance notice, or the date the
Commission receives any further information it requested, if the
Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not
object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to
implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any
conditions imposed by the Commission. The clearing agency shall post
notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance
Notice, as amended, is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSCC-2013-802 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 No. SR-NSCC-2013-802. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Advance Notice, as amended, that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the Advance Notice, as amended, 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
Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at http://dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/nscc/2013.php. 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 No. SR-
NSCC-2013-802 and should be submitted on or before August 5, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16821 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38628]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9694-5]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement
concerning the Arkansas Waste to Energy Superfund Site, located in
Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas. The settlement requires the
settling party to pay a total of $2,500,000 as payment of response
costs to the Hazardous Substance Superfund). The settlement includes a
covenant not to sue pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA. For thirty (30)
days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will
receive written comments relating to this notice and will receive
written comments relating to the settlement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a
proposed administrative settlement concerning the Arkansas Waste to
Energy Superfund Site, located in Osceola, Mississippi County,
Arkansas.
    The settlement requires the settling party to pay a total of
$2,500,000 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substance
Superfund). The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to
Section 107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background
information relating to the settlement are available for public
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments
should reference the Arkansas Waste to Energy Superfund Site, located
in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas, and EPA Docket Number 06-02-
12, and should be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, Assistant Regional
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8030.

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-15905 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 47311]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2570-031]

Ohio Power Company; AEP Generation Resources, Inc.; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments and
Motions to Intervene

    On July 19, 2013, Ohio Power Company (transferor) and AEP
Generation Resources, Inc. (transferee) filed an application for
transfer of license for the Racine Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.
2570, located at the U.S. Corps of Engineers Racine Locks and Dam on
the Ohio River in Meigs County, Ohio.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the
Racine Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicants' Contact: For transferor: Mr. Ken McDonough, Assistant
General Counsel--Real Estate, American Electric Power Service
Corporation, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215, telephone (614)
716-1696 and Mr. Frank M. Simms, AER Plant Manager II, American
Electric Power Service Corporation, 40 Franklin Road, Roanoke, VA
24011, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For transferee: Mr. Jeffrey D. Cross,
Deputy General Counsel, American Electric Power Service Corporation, 1
Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice, by the Commission. Comments and
motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More
information about this project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary
link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-2570) in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-
3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18747 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27885-27887]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-1073]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
Revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0017,
Various International Agreement Safety

Certificates and Documents. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June
16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2013-1073] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2013-1073], and must be received by June 16,
2014. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2013-1073]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2013-1073'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2013-1073'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0017.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (79 FR 16022, March 24, 2014)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Various International Agreement Safety Certificates and
Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0017.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of SOLAS vessels.
    Abstract: These Coast Guard issued forms are used as evidence of
compliance with the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea,
1974 by certain U.S. vessels on international voyages. Without the
proper certificates or documents, a U.S. vessel could be detained in
foreign ports.
    Forms: CG-967, CG-968, CG-968A, CG-969, CG-3347, CG-3347B, CG-4359,
CG-4360, CG-4361, CG-5643, CG-5679, CG-5679A, CG-5680, CG-6038, CG-
6038A.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 169 hours
to 94 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual number of
responses.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: May 8, 2014.
Thomas P. Michelli,
Deputy Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications,
Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-11141 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P