P.1 

OAR Box 1837 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

68) l-A-1 

Docket Number: 

A-84-29 

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:07 PM Sheet 68 of 238 
_EJ 

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 1, 1984 / Notices 30823 

i J. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, pursuant to 

delegated authority. 

Shirly E. Hollis, 

Assistant Secretary.' 

|FR Doc. 64-20257 Filed 7-31-34; 8:45 am| 

BILLING CODE Mt0-01-41 

[Release No. 21174; File No. SR-OCC-84-

111 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Filing 

of Proposed Rule Change of Options 

Clearing Corporation 

July 26, 1984. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

"Act"), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l), notice is 

hereby given that on July 6,1984, the 

Options Clearing Corporation ("OCC") 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission the proposed rule change 

as described herein. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

The proposed rule change would 

amend OCC's By-Laws ' to provide 

specifically that a clearing member's 

cash clearing fund contribution may be 

deposited in a segregated funds 

account

 a at a bank designated by the 

clearing member and approved by 

OCC.9 Although for several years OCC 

has allowed clearing members to use 

segregated funds accounts for cash 

clearing fund contributions

 4 OCC 

1

 Article VIII. Sections 3 end 4 of OCC's By-Laws. 

* A "segregated funds account" is a demand 

deposit account containing solely the cash clearing 

fund contribution of the clearing member. The 

account is maintained in the name of OCC and is 

subject to OCCs exclusive control. However, the 

account record reflects the name of the clearing 

member for whom the account was established. 

OCC and the clearing member may make deposits 

to the account, but only OCC may withdraw such 

funds. OCC and (he bank must enter into an 

agreement in order to establish a segregated funds 

account. This agreement provides that funds in the 

account shall be segregated from all other funds 

deposited with the bank by OCC or the clearing 

member. The agreement also provides that funds in 

the account shall not be subject to any lien, charge, 

security interest, claim, or right of set-off in favor of 

the bank or any person claiming through the bank. 

However, the agreement does create an exception 

for security interests that may be granted lo the 

bank by OCC to secure borrowings authorized by 

Article Vill of the OCC's ByUwo. 

3

 The proposed rule change also moves a 

provision from Article V1H, section 4 to section 3 

that provides that Interest accrued on contributions 

of government securities, evidenced by the delivery 

of depository receipts to OCC. shall belong to the 

contributing clearing member. 

* See File No. SR-OCC-81-4. Securities Exchange 

Act Release No. 17938 (July 13,1981). 48 FR 37842 

(July 22,1861). OCC states in Its filing that a bank 

that provides segregated funds accounts typically 

agrees with a clearing member to treat deposits in 

intends this proposed rule change to 

provide specifically for these accounts 

in its By-Laws. The proposal provides 

that a clearing member shall bear any 

risk of loss of funds deposited in its 

segregated funds account and any 

interest paid on the account shall accrue 

to the clearing member.8 OCC believes 

it is appropriate for clearing members to 

bear the risk of loss of funds in such 

accounts because each clearing member 

selects the depository institution to 

maintain the member's segregated funds 

accounting. 

OCC believes that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the purposes 

and requirements of Section 17A of the 

Act because it enhances OCC's system 

for safeguarding funds in its custody or 

control and relieves OCC of a risk to 

which it might otherwise be subject. 

In order to assist the Commission in 

determining whether to approve the 

proposed rule change or to institute 

proceedings to determine whether the 

proposed rule change should be 

disapproved, interested persons are 

invited to submit written data, views 

and arguments concerning the 

submission within 21 days after the date 

of publication in the Federal Register. 

Persons desiring to make written 

comments should file six copies thereof 

with the Secretary of the Commission, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 

20549. Reference should be made to File 

No. SR-OCC-84-11. 

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, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 

Copies of the filing and of any 

subsequent amendments also will be.', 

available fpr inspection and copying at 

the principal office of the abovementioned self-regulatory organization. 

these accounts as compensating balances and offers 

the clearing member reduced financing costs In 

exchange for the segregated funds account deposits. 

* Current Article VIII, section 4 of OCC's By-Laws 

provides that OCC may invest cash clearing fund 

contributions in government securities or In special 

accounts in approved depositories. That current 

section, however, provides that the Interest or gain 

received on the investment or deposit of such cash 

contributions shall belong to OCC. The proposed 

rule change maintains those provisions as 

subsection (a) and adds a new subsection (b) to 

section 4 to provide .for segregated funds accounts. ' 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority. 

Shirley E. Hollis, 

Assistant Secretary. 

|KR Doc. 84-20258 Filed 7-31-84; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M10-01-M ' 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

(Declaration of Disaster Loan Area No. 

2161] 

Declaration of Disaster Loan Area; 

Pennsylvania 

Lancaster County and the adjacent 

County of York in the State of 

Pennsylvania constitute a disaster area 

because of damage caused by flash 

flooding which occurred on July 1,1984. 

Applications for loans for physical 

damage may be filed until die close of 

business on September 24,1984, and for 

economic injury until tho close of 

business on April 25,1985. et the 

address listed below: Disaster Area 2 

Office, Small Business Administration, 

Richard B. Russell Federal Bldg., 75

 ! 

Spring St., SW., Atlanta. CA 30303. , 

or other locally announced locations. 

Interest rates are: 

Percent 

Homeowners with credit available olsewhero... 8.000 

Homeowners without credit available efsowtiare 4.000 

Businesses with credit ivaitaWo elssrvhoro _.__._. 8.000 

Businesses without credit available elsewhere— _ 4.000 

Businesses (EIDLJ without credit available ottsowhere 4.000 

Other (non-protit organization* including charitable and religious organizations) 10.500 

The number assigned to this disaster 

is 216106 for physical damage and for 

economic injury the number is 619700. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 69002 end 59008) 

Dated: July 25,1984. 

James C. Sanders, 

Administrator. 

|FR Doc. 84-20305 Filed 7-31-84; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE 802S-01-M 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER-FRL-2644-6] . 

Protocol to the Proposed Convontlon 

for the Protection of tho Ozone Layer 

Negotiated Under the United Nations 

Environment Programme; Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of State (Stato 

Department) and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 
•XL-

'S <• 

*»s li-Jk. 

^fAh^. 

"K" 

^^^^fefegs^i-x 

,.«..• w^Si.C'ik. 

P.3 

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 1, 1984 / Notices" 

• " T" g ' tier 1 - • -- . • - . '" *• ' •—-• — " • •' • - -*.'•' - • ' - ' • . » w ;.••'•' •' ' - ' •• • i. . i . i ' ' _-—-• . . . i i • — i 

i 1 1 1 

I; 

X 

X 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

draft environmental impact statement 

(E1S) and to conduct a public scoping 

meeting. 

8UK1MAKV: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and in furtherance of 

Executive Order 12114 (E.O. 12114), 

"Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 

Federal Actions," the State Department 

and EPA give notice that they are jointly 

preparing a draft EIS on a 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) control 

protocol (Protocol) to the proposed 

"Convention for the Protection of the 

Ozone Layer" (Convention) being 

negotiated under the auspices of the 

United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP). The Protocol is currently being 

negotiated among the United States 

(U.S.) and other U.N. member nations 

for the purpose of instituting specific 

measures to protect the ozone layer of 

the earth's atmosphere. EPA is 

participating with the State Department 

in these negotiations. If concluded, the 

Protocol will be adopted and opened for 

signature of UNEP members. 

E.0.12114 requires the preparation of 

an EIS for major Federal actions that 

could significantly affect the 

environment of the global commons 

outside the jurisdiction of any nation 

(Sections 2~3(a) and 2-4 (b)(i)). 

Guidance published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality specifically 

includes major Federal actions 

significantly affecting stratospheric 

conditions in areas ouside the 

jurisdiction of any nation as an example 

of the global commons (44 FR 18722; 

March 25,1979). Because any Protocol is 

likely to include measures that could 

significantly affect the ozone layer, the 

State Department has determined as a 

matter of policy that U.S. adherence to 

the Protocol should be treated as a 

major Federal action necessitating the 

preparation of an EIS under the E.O. 

12114 and NEPA. The preparation of this 

EIS, however, does not commit the U.S. 

to any particular final position 

concerning the contents of a Protocol. 

The draft Convention, which is also 

currently being negotiated by the U.S. 

and other notions, is a global agreement 

• that would provide a framework for 

cooperative research; monitoring, and 

information exchange. It also allows for 

the possible adoption of specific control 

measures in the future through the 

addition of Protocols. The State 

Department has determined that the 

activities currently called for under the 

proposed Convention would not 

significantly affect the environment 

inside or outside the U.S., and therefore 

- does not require further review under 

E.0.12114 or NEPA. Thus, only a 

possible Protocol, and not the proposed 

Convention, will be evaluated in the EIS. 

If future actions are later proposed 

under the Convention that might cause 

significant environmental effects, an 

environmental review of those activities 

under the Convention could then be 

prepared, if appropriate. 

The State Department and EPA invite 

interested agencies, organizations, and 

members of the public to submit 

comments or suggestions for 

consideration in connection with the 

preparation of the draft EIS. A "scoping" 

meeting has been scheduled to assist the 

State Department and EPA in identifying 

significant environmental issues and 

comments relating to the appropriate 

scope of the draft EIS are requested. 

Comments may be presented at this 

meeting or submitted to the State 

Department at the address given below. 

On completion of the draft EIS, its 

availability will be announced in the 

Federal Register and comments will be 

solicited. Comments on the draft EIS 

will be considered in preparing the final 

EIS. 

ADDRESS: Written comments or 

suggestions on the scope of the EIS and 

requests to speak at the scoping meeting 

' may be submitted to Sally ValdesCogliano, Room 4325. Office of 

Environment and Health, Bureau of 

Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State, Washington, 

D.C. 20520. (202) 632-2311. Draft copies 

of the proposed Convention and 

Protocol can be obtained from this 

address* 

DATES: Written comments postmarked 

by August 20,1984 will be considered in 

the preparation of the draft EIS. 

Comments postmarked after that date 

will be considered to the maximum 

extent practicable. A scoping meeting 

will be held at the East Auditorium of 

the State Department on August 13 

starting at 9:00 A.M. Requests to speak 

at this meeting should be received by 

August 10. Requests to speak may also 

be made during registration commencing 

one hour before the start of the meeting. 

Interested parties who do not wish to 

submit comments or suggestions at this 

time, but who would like to receive a 

copy of the draft EIS for review and 

comment should contact the State 

Department at the above address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Considerable research shows that CFC 

emissions may be associated with the 

depletion of stratospheric ozone in the 

earth's atmosphere. If such depletion 

occurs, it would result in increases in 

solar UV-B radiation and possibly 

changes in climate. Although much 

uncertainty exists as to the likely 

magnitude and consequences, of any 

such changes, modification of the earth's 

ozone layer and climate could pose 

potentially serious health and 

environmental risks. For example, 

according to the most recent National 

Academy of Sciences study of this 

subject [Causes and Effects of Changes 

in Stratospheric Ozone: Update 1983), 

an increase in UV-B radiation could 

lead to an increased incidence of nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancer in 

humans. The report also suggests a link 

between exposure to UV-B radiation 

and depression of the general human 

imumne responsive system which could 

increase the incidence of secondary 

discuses. It ulso indicates that increased 

UV-B radiation may adversely affect the 

yield of certain food crops and that such 

increases could harm marine organisms. 

Climatic effects are also possible from 

increases in CFC emissions and 

modification of the ozone layer, but the 

extent of the effects is uncertain. EPA is 

currently reviewing this and related 

scientific information, and plans shortly 

to publish a Federal Register notice 

summarizing its current assessment. 

Protection of the ozone layer has been 

a long-standing concern of UNEP and its 

member states. At the 1981 Montevideo 

Senior Level Meeting on Environmental 

Law, this subject was recommended as 

a priority for future work within UNEP. 

On the basis of this recommendation, 

the UNEP Governing Concil established 

the Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and 

Technical Experts, which in 1982 began 

negotiating a global framework 

Convention for the Protection of the 

Ozone Layer. If adopted, the Convention 

would establish general provisions for 

cooperation on research, monitoring, 

and information exchange. 

The proposed Convention also 

contains provisions for separately 

adopting measures, in the form of 

protocols, to control emissions of 

substances that may affect the ozone 

layer. Work on the protocol now under 

consideration began in 1983. This 

proposed protocol would establish 

specific obligations for controlling, 

limiting, reducing, or banning certain 

uses of CFCs. Working Group 

discussions on this protocol have 

focused primarily on a ban on nonessential uses of CFCs in aerosols. Tho 

U.S. instituted such a ban in 1978 (43 FR 

11502; March 17,1978). Since that time a 

number of other countries have adopted 

similar restrictions on non-essential 

uses of CFCs in aerosols, while other 

countries have instituted partial aerosol 

bans. 
P.4 

—-^.^ ^—~ ~..~ 

. This draft EIS will analyze the 

impacts of a global ban on non-essential 

aerosol uses of CFCs and other 

alternatives that are feasible within the 

context of the present multilateral 

negotiations on a protocol. 

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives: 

There are a number of possible 

approaches to a Protocol. The State 

Department and EPA believe that the 

following alternatives represent a 

reasonable range of alternatives to be 

examined in the draft EIS: ' 

Alternative 1—No action i.e., no 

Protocol: Under this alternative, the U.S. 

and other countries fail to agree to a 

Protocol and therefore no control 

measures are instituted. 

Alternative 2—Total ban: The parties 

could agree to a Protocol consisting of a 

total ban on non-essential aerosol uses 

of CFCs. 

Alternative 3—Phased-in controls: 

The parties could agree to a Protocol 

consisting of various combinations of 

phased-in controls on non-essential 

aerosol uses of CFCs. 

Alternative 4—Limits on other uses or 

substances: The parties could agree to a 

Protocol consisting of limits or controls 

on uses of CFCs other than nonessential aerosols and/or on potential 

ozone depleting substances other dian 

CFCs (e.g., carbon tetrachloride, methyl 

chloroform, etc.). 

Alternative 5—-Other options: The 

parties could agree to a Protocol 

consisting of alternatives to emission 

limits or controls, including production 

capacity limits, and research and 

development options. 

Because the proposed Protocol is the 

subject of ongoing multilateral 

negotiations, a preferred alternative 

among the control options will not be 

identified in the draft EIS. Comments on 

the scope and definition of these 

alternatives, as well as suggestions on 

other reasonable alternatives for the 

State Department and EPA to consider 

in the draft EIS are invited through use 

of the "scoping" process described 

below. 

Preliminary List of Issues: The State 

Department and EPA propose to 

examine the following issues in the draft 

EIS: 

—Relationship of CFC emissions and 

other atmospheric perturbants to 

depletion of ozone and to changes in 

the vertical column of ozone in the 

earth's atmosphere. 

—Effects of alternative Protocol options 

on potential increases in UV-B 

radiation: 

—Potential health effects 

—Potential plant and animal effects, 

including effects on marine organisms 

and food crops 

—Potential damages to materials 

—Potential quality of life impacts 

—Effects of alternative Protocol options 

on potential changes in climiite 

—Socio-economic effects of alternative 

Protocol options: > 

—Costs associated with potentiul effects 

on human health, food crops, aquatic 

life, and materials damage. 

—Potential effects associated with using 

FCF substitutes. 

—Potential impacts on U.S. trade and 

foreign subsidiaries. 

The draft EIS will examine direct, 

indirect, short-term and long-term 

effects of the proposed alternatives, 

along with possible mitigation actions. 

The many uncertainties underlying the 

analysis will be addressed in the draft 

EIS. To the extent possible, the 

environmental effects of the alternatives 

will be evaluated on a global scale, and 

quantitative estimates will be provided 

wherever possible. Related 

socioeconomic issues will be examined 

on a U.S. domestic level as required 

under NEPA. « 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in the scoping process 

discussed below to help refine this list 

so as to arrive at the significant issues to 

be analyzed in depth in the draft EIS 

and to eliminate from detailed study the 

issues that are not significant. 

Scoping; The scoping process will 

involve all interested Federal agencies, 

groups, and members of the public. The 

scoping meeting will be an informal 

session presided over by representatives 

of the State Department and EPA. The 

State Department will establish 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

meetings. The meetings will provide an 

opportunity for comments and 

questions, but will not be conducted as 

evidentiary hearings. To ensure that 

everyone who wishes to speak has a 

chance to do so, five minutes will be 

allotted to each speaker. Depending on 

the number of persons requesting to be 

heard, the State Department may allow 

longer times for representatives of . 

organizations. Persons wishing to speak 

on behalf of an organization should 

identify the organization in their request. 

Persons who have not submitted a 

request to speak in advance may 

request to speak at the scoping meeting, 

but will be called on to present their 

comments only if time permits. Both oral 

and written comments will be 

considered and will be given equal 

weight. Written comments and a 

transcript of the scoping meeting will be 

available for public inspection at Room 

4325 at the State Department and at the 

Central Docket Section at EPA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! 

Sally Valdes-Cogliano, U.S. Department 

of State. (202) 632-2311 

Stephen Seidel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, (202) 382-2787 . # 

Dated: July 26,1904. 

Mary Rose Hughes, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Environment, 

Health, and Natural Resources, Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and 

Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

Dated: July 25,1984. 

John C. Topping, • 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, U.S. EPA. 

(KR Doc. 84-20337 Filed 7-31-64: 8:43 <un| 

BILLING CODE 8640-60-M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Proposed Advisory Circular; Water 

Ingestion Testing for Turbine Powered 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation j 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed Advisory j 

Circular 20-XX, and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of and requests comments 

on a proposed advisory circular (AC) 

concerning the ingestion of water from 

the runway/taxiway surface into the 

airspeed system, the engine, and 

essential auxiliary power unit air inlet 

ducts of turbine engine powered 

airplanes, 

DATE: Comments must be received on or 

before October 1,1984. 

ADDRESS: Send all comments to the 

proposed AC to; Federal Aviation 

Administration, Attention: Regulations 

and Policy Office, ANM-110, Northwest 

Mountain Region, 17900 Pacific Highway 

South, C-68966, Seattle, Washington 

98168. Comments may be inspected at 

the above address between 7:30 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m. weekdays, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:-' 

Neil Schalkamp, Regulations end Policy 

Office, at die above address, telephone 

(208) 431-21135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: . 

Comments Invited 

A copy of the proposed AC may be 

obtained by contacting the person 

named above under FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT. Interested 

persons are invited to comment on the 

proposed AC by submitting such written 

agatasaaBieiifaaMs^'^v'-n-yiHlftw'iiS 

J£2S Mil i