Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 41981

Commission has further determined

that, pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, the

exemption is authorized by law and will

not endanger life or property or the

common defense and security and is

otherwise in the public interest. The

Commission hereby grants the licensee

an exemption from the requirements of

10 CFR 70.24(a)(1), (2), and (3), on the

bases as stated in Section II above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 40122).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20451 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414]

In the Matter of Duke Power Company,

et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units

1 and 2)

Exemption

I

The Duke Power Company, et al. (the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License Nos. NPF–35 and

NPF–52, for the Catawba Nuclear

Station, Units 1 and 2. The licenses

provide, among other things, that the

licensee is subject to all rules,

regulations, and orders of the

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

These facilities consist of two

pressurized water reactors located at the

licensee’s site in York County, South

Carolina.

II

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) at subsection (a) of

10 CFR 70.24, ‘‘Criticality Accident

Requirements,’’ requires that each

licensee authorized to possess special

nuclear material shall maintain in each

area where such material is handled,

used, or stored, a criticality accident

monitoring system ‘‘using gamma- or

neutron-sensitive radiation detectors

which will energize clearly audible

alarm signals if accidental criticality

occurs.’’ Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

10 CFR 70.24 specify the detection,

sensitivity, and coverage capabilities of

the monitors required by 10 CFR

70.24(a). Subsection (a)(3) of 10 CFR

70.24 requires that the licensee shall

maintain emergency procedures for each

area in which this licensed special

nuclear material is handled, used, or

stored and provides (1) that the

procedures ensure that all personnel

withdraw to an area of safety upon the

sounding of a criticality monitor alarm,

(2) that the procedures must include

drills to familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and (3) that the

procedures designate responsible

individuals for determining the cause of

the alarm and placement of radiation

survey instruments in accessible

locations for use in such an emergency.

Subsection (b)(1) requires licensees to

have a means to quickly identify

personnel who have received a dose of

10 rads or more. Subsection (b)(2)

requires licensees to maintain personnel

decontamination facilities, to maintain

arrangements for a physician and other

medical personnel qualified to handle

radiation emergencies, and to maintain

arrangements for the transportation of

contaminated individuals to treatment

facilities outside the site boundary.

Subsection (c) exempts Part 50 licensees

(such as Catawba) from the

requirements of paragraph (b).

Subsection (d) states that any licensee

who believes that there is good cause

why he should be granted an exemption

from all or part of 10 CFR 70.24 may

apply to the Commission for such an

exemption and shall specify the reasons

for the relief requested.

By letter dated February 4, 1997, as

supplemented March 19, 1997, Duke

Power Company requested an

exemption for its two nuclear plants

from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24.

The staff has reviewed the submittal in

regard to Catawba, and documented its

detailed review in a Safety Evaluation.

The staff found that Catawba’s existing

procedures and design features make an

inadvertent criticality in special nuclear

materials handling or storage at Catawba

unlikely. The licensee has thus met the

intent of 10 CFR 70.24(a) (1), (2), and (3)

by the low probability of an inadvertent

criticality in areas where fresh fuel

could be present, by the licensee’s

adherence to General Design Criterion

63 regarding radiation monitoring, and

by provisions for personnel training and

evacuation.

III

Section 70.14 of 10 CFR, ‘‘Specific

exemptions,’’ states that

The Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant such exemptions from the

requirements of the regulations in this part as

it determines are authorized by law and will

not endanger life or property or the common

defense and security and are otherwise in the

public interest.

Section 70.24(d) of 10 CFR states that

Any licensee who believes that good cause

exists why he should be granted an

exemption in whole or in part from the

requirements of this section may apply to the

Commission for such exemption.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that good cause is present as

defined in 10 CFR 70.24(d). The

Commission has further determined

that, pursuant to 10 CFR 70.14, the

exemption is authorized by law and will

not endanger life or property or the

common defense and security and is

otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants Duke Power Company an

exemption from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a) (1), (2), and (3) for

Catawba, Units 1 and 2, on the bases as

stated in Section II above.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting of this exemption will have no

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 40553).

This exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of July 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–20452 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–38882; File No. SR–CHX–

97–15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto

by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Relating to a Specialist’s DeRegistration in an Issue

July 28, 1997.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is

hereby given that on June 4, 1997, the

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change, and on July 3, 1997, July 22,

1997, and July 28, 1997, filed

Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
41982 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

1See Letter from David T. Rusoff, Attorney, Foley

& Lardner, to Sharon Lawson, Senior Special

Counsel, Division of Market Regulation,

Commission, dated June 23, 1997 (‘‘Amendment

No. 1’’) and Letters from David T. Rusoff, Attorney,

Foley & Lardner, to Heather Seidel, Attorney,

Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated

July 16, 1997 (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’) and July 21,

1997 (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’).

2A specialist is a ‘‘unit’’ or organization which

has registered as such with the Exchange under

Article XXX, Rule 1. A co-specialist is an individual

who has registered as such under Article XXX, Rule

1. See CHX Rules Article XXX, Rule 1,

Interpretation and Policy .01.4(a).

3See CHX Rules Article IV, Rule 4.

4See CHX Rules Article XXX, Rule 1,

Interpretation and Policy .01.2.

5 In this context, ‘‘in competition’’ means that

more than one specialist had applied to be the

specialist in the issue.

6The Exchange stated its intention to have the

new policy apply anytime there will not be another

specialist assigned to the issue, such as if the

security was to be returned to the cabinet, put in

the cabinet for the first time, or traded by a lead

primary market maker pursuant to CHX Rules

Article XXXIV, Rule 3. See Amendment No. 2,

supra note 1. Cabinet securities are those securities

which the Board of Governors designates to be

traded in the cabinet system because in the

judgment of the Board such securities do not trade

with sufficient frequency to warrant their retention

in the specialist system. See CHX Rules Article

XXVIII, Rule 6. For a more detailed explanation of

the operation of the cabinet system, see CHX Rules

Article XX, Rule 11.

7 In this context, posting means that all specialists

are put on notice that the security in question is

available for reassignment. See CHX rules Article

XXX, Rule 1. Telephone conversation between

David Rusoff, Attorney, Foley & Lardner, and

Heather Seidel, Attorney, Market Regulation,

Commission, on July 24, 1997. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

respectively,1 to the proposed rule

change, as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to amend

Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and

Policy .01 of the CHX Rules, to change

a policy of the Exchange’s Committee on

Specialist Assignment and Evaluation

(‘‘CSAE’’) relating to the time periods

for which a co-specialist must trade a

security before deregistering as the

specialist for the security. This policy

would be in effect for a one year pilot

program.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of

and basis for the proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

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

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The Exchange’s CSAE is responsible

for, among other things, appointing

specialists and co-specialists 2 and

conducting deregistration proceedings

in accordance with Article XXX of the

Exchange’s rules.3 As described in

existing Interpretation and Policy .01 of

Rule 1 of Article XXX, seven

circumstances may lead to the need for

assignment or re-assignment of a

security. One such circumstance is by

specialist request.

Currently, the CSAE ‘‘will initiate a

re-assignment proceeding if it believes

that such action is called for.’’ 4 Using

this standard, the CSAE’s current policy

is to require a co-specialist to trade an

issue awarded in competition 5 for a two

year period, and to trade an issue

awarded without competition for a sixmonth period, before permitting a cospecialist to deregister in the issue.

The CHX proposes to amend this

policy for a one year pilot program.

Specifically, the proposal would change

the time periods for which a cospecialist must trade an issue before the

CSAE will, in general, approve a cospecialist’s request to deregister in an

issue.6 These time periods would vary

depending on whether the issue was

awarded in competition or without

competition and whether another

specialist will assume the responsibility

to trade the issue.

Under the proposed rule change, for

a security that was awarded to a cospecialist in competition, such cospecialist will be required to trade the

security for one year before being able

to deregister in the security if no other

specialist will be assigned to the

security after posting.7 The two year

time period currently in place for an

intra-firm transfer of such issues (i.e.,

transferring the issue to another cospecialist in the same specialist unit)

will remain. For a security that was

awarded to a co-specialist without

competition, such co-specialist will be

required to trade the security for a three

month period before being able to

deregister in the security if no other

specialist will be assigned to the

security after posting. The six month

time period currently in place for an

intra-firm transfer of such issues will

remain.

Whether or not the security was

awarded in competition, the effective

date of a specialist’s deregistration in an

issue for which no specialist will be

assigned after posting will be the first

business day of each calendar quarter;

provided, however, that the applicable

time period for which a specialist is

required to trade an issue must have

been satisfied prior to such date.

Whether or not the security was

awarded in competition, in general, the

CSAE will require that order sending

firms be given at least 15 days advance

notice of a co-specialist’s intention to

de-register in the issue.

The Exchange believes that this new

policy will encourage more specialists

and co-specialists to become the

specialist or co-specialist in additional

securities. By reducing the current two

year requirement to one year and the

current six month requirement to three

months, a specialist or co-specialist will

reduce its risk and exposure that is

attendant with registering as a specialist

or co-specialist for a particular issue.

The Exchange believes that the current

two year and six month standards are

too long—they are too burdensome and

onerous on a specialist or co-specialist.

Circumstances can unexpectedly change

over a two year period. As a result,

under the current policy, a specialist or

co-specialist may be reluctant to apply

to become a specialist in an issue. The

Exchange believes that the new policy,

as proposed, will more accurately

balance the need for consistency and

continuity with respect to the trading of

an issue by a particular specialist

against the need by a specialist to have

the flexibility to de-register as the

specialist for an unprofitable issue. As

stated above, this will encourage

specialists to apply to trade more issues.

This, in turn, will increase the liquidity

and depth of the market. For example,

it might encourage a specialist to trade

an issue in which no specialist is

currently assigned.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in that it is

designed to promote just and equitable

principles of trade, to remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system, and, in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 41983

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter from Michele R. Weisbaum, Vice

President and Associate General Counsel, Phlx, to

Deborah Flynn, Attorney, Division of Market

Regulation, SEC, dated July 14, 1997 (‘‘Amendment

No. 1’’). In Amendment No. 1, the Phlx replaced all

references to ‘‘participant’’ and ‘‘participant

organization’’ in the proposal with ‘‘foreign

currency option participant’’ and ‘‘foreign currency

option participant organization’’ to clarify the

applicability of the proposed rule.

4 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101–08.

5According to the Exchange, it will issue an

Information Circular advising the membership of

the new telemarketing rules upon their approval,

and clarifying that abusive, annoying or harassing

telemarketing calls by members, foreign currency

option participants, member organizations and

foreign currency option participant organizations or

their associated persons are violative of Phlx Rules

707 and 762.

6See Telemarketing Act, supra note 4.

7 16 CFR 310.

8 §§ 310.3–4 of FTC Rules.

9 Id. Pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, the FTC

Rules do not apply to brokers, dealers, and other

Continued

general, to protect investors and the

public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any inappropriate burden on

competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either

solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register or

within such longer period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date if it finds such longer

period to be appropriate and publishes

its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to

which the self-regulatory organization

consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve the proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the Exchange. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–CHX–97–15 and should be

submitted by August 25, 1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority. 9

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20410 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–38875; File No. SR–Phlx–

97–18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of Proposed

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1

Thereto by the Philadelphia Stock

Exchange, Inc. Relating to

Telemarketing Practices by Members

and Member Organizations

July 25, 1997.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on June 30,

1997, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

the proposed rule change as described

in Items I and II below, which Items

have been prepared by the selfregulatory organization. On July 21,

1997, the Phlx submitted Amendment

No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons and to

grant accelerated approval of the

proposed rule change, as amended.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to add Rule

762, Telemarketing, which is

substantially similar to applicable

provisions of the Federal Trade

Commission rules adopted pursuant to

the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud

and Abuse Prevention Act

(‘‘Telemarketing Act’’).4

The proposal also amends Rule 605,

Advertising, Market Letters, Research

Reports and Sales Literature, requiring

telemarketing scripts to be retained for

three years and to make the rule

specifically applicable to foreign

currency option participants and foreign

currency option participants

organizations as well as to members and

member organizations.5

The text of the proposed rule change

and Amendment No. 1 is available at

the Office of the Secretary, Phlx, and at

the Commission.

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 III below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

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

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

Purpose

Under the Telemarketing Act, which

became law in August 1994,6 the

Federal Trade Commission adopted

detailed regulations (‘‘FTC Rules’’) 7 to

prohibit deceptive and abusive

telemarketing acts and practices; the

regulations became effective on

December 31, 1995.8 The FTC Rules,

among other things, (i) Require the

maintenance of ‘‘do-not-call’’ lists and

procedures, (ii) prohibit certain abusive,

annoying, or harassing telemarketing

calls, (iii) prohibit telemarketing calls

before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., (iv) require

a telemarketer to identify himself or

herself, the company he or she works

for, and the purposes of the call, and (v)

require express written authorization or

other verifiable authorization from the

customer before the firm may use

negotiable instruments called ‘‘demand

drafts.’’ 9