37196 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices

32See Amendment No.5

33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).

35 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

36 15 U.S.C. 78S(b).

37 15 U.S.C 78f(b)(5).

38 15 U.S.C. 78s.

39 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

40 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).

41 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)

42 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

considering inappropriate information

that could lead to uneven or potentially

discriminatory application of the

eligibility requirements. The second set

of guidelines set forth the factors to be

considered by the MPC, pursuant to

Interpretation .01, in determining

whether to apply the eligibility

requirements to fewer than all the

option classes traded at a trading

station. The second set of guidelines

was eliminated by the CBOE in a

subsequent amendment.32

The Commission believes that the

proposals in Amendment No. 1 enhance

the proposed rule change. For these

reasons the Commission believes that

good cause exists, consistent with

Section 6(b)(5) 33 and Section 19(b) 34 of

the Act, to accelerate approval of

Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule

change.

In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange

proposed to limit the application of the

proposed rule to options classes

identified as having market makers that

trade an inordinate percentage of their

trades on RAES. The Commission

believes that allowing the Exchange to

limit application of the proposal to only

certain options classes will reduce the

potential for undue burdens to be

placed on those options classes that are

trading without problems and that have

market makers that are actively fulfilling

their market making obligations. In

addition, the Exchange further

explained why it believes that its

proposal sufficiently protects against the

MPC discriminating against or in favor

of any parties when exercising its

discretion to exclude certain days from

the percentage calculations. The

Commission is satisfied that the

proposal prevents the MPC from

applying the eligibility requirements in

a discriminatory fashion. In particular,

the Commission believes that, because

the data upon which the MPC will base

its decision to exclude certain days from

the calculation of the eligibility

requirement will not identify individual

market makers, the MPC will not be able

to make such decisions based upon the

businesses of the individual market

makers on those days. For these reasons,

the Commission believes that

Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the

Act and that good cause exists to

accelerate its approval.

The Commission believes that good

cause exists, pursuant to Section

6(b)(5) 35 and Section 19(b) 36 of the Act,

to accelerate approval of Amendment

No. 3 to the proposed rule change. In

Amendment No. 3, the Exchange

proposed to exempt DPMs from the

eligibility requirements. The

Commission believes that in light of the

additional responsibilities that DPMs

must fulfill and due to the fact that

these additional responsibilities are

required by specific CBOE rules, that it

is reasonable to exempt DPMs from the

eligibility requirements.

The Commission believes that good

cause exists, pursuant to Section

6(b)(5) 37 and Section 19(b) 38 of the Act,

to accelerate approval of Amendment

No. 4 to the proposed rule change.

Amendment No. 4 was technical in

nature and only sought to correct the

proposed rule language submitted in

Amendment No. 3 to make it consistent

with the proposed rule language

submitted in Amendment No. 2.

Finally, in Amendment No. 5, the

Exchange deleted proposed factors that

were no longer applicable after the

submission of Amendment No. 2.

Specifically, in Amendment No. 2, the

Exchange proposed to only apply the

percentage requirements to those

options classes that had a demonstrated

need for the limitations. The factors the

Exchange proposes to delete in

Amendment No. 5 were to be used by

the MPC to determine if options classes

should be exempt from the percentage

requirements. Because the proposal now

only applies the percentage

requirements to those options classes

with a demonstrated need, these factors

are no longer appropriate. In addition,

the Exchange proposed to add factors to

be used by the MPC to determine which

options classes should be subject to the

percentage requirements. The

Commission believes that the factors, as

described above, provide the Exchange

with appropriate discretion to

determine which options should be

subject to the limitations. Therefore, the

Commission believes that good cause

exists, pursuant to Section 6(b)(5) 39 and

Section 19(b) 40 of the Act, to accelerate

approval of Amendment No. 5.

V. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning Amendment Nos.

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, including whether

Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are

consistent with the Act. Persons making

written submissions should file six

copies thereof with the Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC

20549–0609. 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 in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the CBOE. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–CBOE–97–37 and should be

submitted by July 5, 2000.

VI. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,41 that the

amended proposed rule change (SR–

CBOE–97–37) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.42

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14850 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–42900; File No. SR–OCC–

00–03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Options Clearing Corporation; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To

Amend OCC’s By-Laws Relating to

Clearing Member Representatives

June 5, 2000.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

April 6, 2000, The Options Clearing

Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which have been prepared

primarily by OCC. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments from interested persons on

the proposed rule change.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Notices 37197

2The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries prepared by OCC.

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iv).

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4).

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The proposed rule change eliminates

a requirement in OCC’s By-Laws that

requires clearing members to designate

a specific individual (a ‘‘designee’’) as

eligible for service as a member director

or a member of the nominating

committee. Instead, the amended ByLaws will provide that a member

director or a member of the nominating

committee must be a ‘‘representative’’ of

a clearing member.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

OCC 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. OCC has prepared

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

and (C) below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.2

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to eliminate an OCC By-Law

requirement that clearing members must

designate a specific individual (a

‘‘designee’’) to be eligible for service as

a member director or a member of the

nominating committee. Instead, OCC

believes that it would be more

administratively efficient to require that

a member director or a member of the

nominating committee must be a

‘‘representative’’ of a clearing member.

A ‘‘representative’’ is defined as a

director, senior officer, principal or

general partner of a clearing member.

The term ‘‘designee’’ is being deleted

from Article I, Section 1 of OCC’s bylaws and conforming changes are being

made to Section 2, 4, and 5 of Article

II of OCC’s By-Laws.

In addition, the term ‘‘elected

members’’ as used with respect to the

nominating committee is being deleted

since all nominating committee

members are elected. The term

‘‘members’’ is being used instead. This

change is being made to Section 4, 5,

and 12 of Article III and Section 3 of

Article VII and to Sections 1, 2, and 3

of the Stockholders Agreement.

OCC also proposed to make other

additional technical and nonsubstantive changes. Section 4 of Article

III is being amended to provide that the

terms of Class I of the nominating

committee expire in odd numbered

years and that the terms of Class II

expire in even number years. Section 5

of Article III is also being amended to

provide that OCC may transmit rather

than mail the list of nominees to

clearing members to accommodate other

means of distribution.

OCC believes that the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section 17a of

the Act because the rule change

eliminates administrative inefficiencies

with no adverse impact to clearing

member representation on OCC’s Board

of Directors.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

OCC does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impact or

impose a burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

Written comments were not and are

not intended to be solicited with respect

to the proposed rule change and none

have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become

effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(iv) 3 of the Act and pursuant

to Rule 19b–4(f)(4) 4 promulgated

thereunder because the proposal effects

a change in an existing service of an

OCC service that does not adversely

affect the safeguarding of securities or

funds in OCC’s custody or control and

does not significantly affect the

respective rights or obligations of OCC

or persons using the service. At any

time within sixty days of the filing of

such proposed rule change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate

such rule change if it appears to the

Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.5

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20549–0609. 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 in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such

filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of OCC. All submissions should

refer to File No. SR–OCC–00–03 and

should be submitted by July 5, 2000.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.6

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–14819 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements

Filed During the Week Ending May 26,

2000

The following Agreements were filed

with the Department of Transportation

under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.

sections 412 and 414. Answers may be

filed within 21 days after the filing of

the application.

Docket Number: OST–2000–7405

Date Filed: May 23, 2000

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association

Subject:

CTC COMP 0280 dated 23 May 2000

Expedited Composite Resolution 506

Special Surcharge Resolution from

Japan

(Except USA/US Territories)

Intended effective date: 1 July 2000

Docket Number: OST–2000–7406

Date Filed: May 23, 2000

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association

Subject:

CTC COMP 0281 dated 23 May 2000