Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices 13729

6 Id.

7See New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) Rule

95; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34363 (July

13, 1994), 59 FR 36808 (July 19, 1994) (order

approving the NYSE’s amendments to Rule 95

which added intra-day trading provisions). The

Commission incorporates by reference the

discussion and analysis contained in the July 1994

Release.

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries prepared by DTC.

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35720 (May

16, 1995), 60 FR 27360 [File No. SR–DTC–95–06]

(order granting accelerated approval of a proposed

rule change modifying DTC’s SDFS system).

4Original payment orders submitted between

3:00 p.m. and 3:20 p.m. are subject to RAD

regardless of their settlement value.

5Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36476

(November 9, 1995), 60 FR 57728 [File No. SR–

DTC–95–16] (notice of filing and order granting

accelerated approval of a proposed rule change

relating to the modification of DTC’s reclamation

procedures).

6A reclaim is deemed to be ‘‘matched’’ if its

corresponding original delivery was processed on

the current processing day or the preceding

business day.

The Commission believes the

proposal is consistent with Section

6(b)(5) 6 because it is designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade and to help perfect the mechanism

of a free and open market. As described

above, these new changes are intended

to address trading situations where a

Floor member, representing at the same

time buy and sell orders at the

minimum variation for the same

customer, may be perceived as having a

time and place advantage over other

market participants in that he or she

may be able to trade for the same

customer without leaving the Trading

Crowd. By requiring the entry of a new

liquidating order, the Commission

believes the proposed rule will

minimize any such perceived

advantage.

In addition, the proposed rule change

will conform the Exchange’s rules to the

rules of another exchange, which also

restricts intra-day trading.7

IV. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the

proposed rule change (SR–Amex-97–02)

is approved.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–7192 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–38404; File No. SR–DTC–

97–03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Depository Trust Company; Notice of

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of

a Proposed Rule Change to Modify the

Receiver Authorized Delivery and

Reclamation Procedures for Payment

Orders

March 14, 1997.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

February 4, 1997, The Depository Trust

Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–DTC–97–03) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which items have been prepared

primarily by DTC. 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 purpose of the proposed rule

change is to modify DTC’s Receiver

Authorized delivery (‘‘RAD’’)

procedures and reclamation procedures

with respect to payment orders.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

DTC 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. DTC 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 proposal is to

modify DTC’s RAD procedures and

reclamation procedures with respect to

payment orders. DTC proposes (1) To

reduce the minimum bilateral RAD

threshold for payment orders from $15

million to $1 million, (2) to modify a

Participants Terminal System (‘‘PTS’’)

function (RADL) to enable a participant

to set a different RAD limit for payment

orders and deliver orders for each

contra-participant, and (3) to allow only

matched reclaims of payment orders

with a value less than $1 million to

bypass risk management controls (i.e.,

collateral monitor and net debit caps).

DTC is proposing this rule change in

order to reduce the risk to DTC and its

participants of failure-to-settle

situations.

In 1995, DTC modified its RAD

procedures in preparation for the sameday funds settlement (‘‘SDFS’’)

conversion.3 The modifications to RAD

procedures established a $15 million

minimum bilateral RAD limit one

participant can impose on another

participant. Under the modified

procedure, the receiver of a payment

order with a value of less than $15

million generally does not have an

opportunity to review and approve the

transaction.4 The RAD modifications

were implemented to minimize the

number of transactions subject to RAD

and the related possibility for

transaction blockage once all activities

were converted to SDFS.

DTC also modified its reclamation

procedures in preparation for the SDFS

conversion and in conjunction with the

modifications to RAD procedures to

ensure that this policy did not cause

undue burden on participants.5 Under

the modified reclamation procedures, a

matched reclaim 6 of a payment order or

deliver order with a settlement value

less than $15 million is currently not

subject to risk management controls.

However, payment orders differ from

deliver orders because payment orders

are ‘‘money-only’’ transactions and do

not involve securities. When a payment

order is processed, the receiver of the

payment order receives a settlement

debit but does not receive any securities

that could serve as collateral for the

debit incurred. Similarly, if a payment

order is reclaimed, the receiver of the

reclamation incurs a debit without

receiving offsetting securities as

collateral. DTC has determined that

there is more risk inherent in the

reclamation of payment orders than in

the reclamation of deliver orders

because the reclamation of payment

orders would more likely cause a

participant’s account to become

undercollateralized. Therefore, DTC

believes that a more conservative

approach with respect to RAD

procedures and reclamation procedures

is appropriate for payment orders.

Under the proposed rule change, RAD

procedures and reclamation procedures

for payment orders will be modified as

follows: (1) the minimum bilateral RAD

threshold for payment orders will be

reduced to $1 million from $15 million;

(2) the PTS function (RADL) will be

modified to enable a participant to set

a different RAD limit for payment orders
13730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 55 / Friday, March 21, 1997 / Notices

7 15 U.S.C. 78q–1.

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(e)(6). 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

and deliver orders for each contraparticipant; and (3) matched reclaims of

payment orders with a value less than

$1 million will not be subject to risk

management controls.

DTC does not anticipate that these

modifications will cause significantly

greater transaction volume.

Approximately 98.5% of payment

orders processed by DTC are valued at

an amount less than $1 million.

Furthermore, DTC estimates that

approximately 600–800 payment orders

of the 50,000 payment orders processed

by DTC on a daily basis could

potentially be subject to the proposed

RAD approval procedures.

DTC believes that the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section 17A of

the Act 7 and the rules and regulations

thereunder because it will provide for

the equitable allocation of dues, fees,

and other charges among participants.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

DTC does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

On December 13, 1996, DTC sent its

participants an Important Notice

describing the proposed rule change.

The proposed rule change has been

discussed with a limited number of

participants. None of the participants

with whom DTC discussed the proposed

rule change expressed any opposition to

its adoption. Written comments from

DTC participants have not been

solicited or received on the proposed

rule change.

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)(iii) 8 of the Act and pursuant

to Rule 19b–4(e)(6) 9 promulgated

thereunder because the proposed rule is

effecting a change that: (1) does not

significantly affect the protection of

investors or the public interest; (2) does

not impose any significant burden on

competition; (3) does not become

operative for thirty days from the date

of its filing on February 4, 1997, or such

shorter time as the Commission may

designate if consistent with the

protection of investors and the public

interest; and (4) was provided to the

Commission for its review at least five

days prior to the filing date. At any time

within sixty days of the filing of the

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.

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, NW.,

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 in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of DTC. All submissions should

refer to File No. SR–DTC–97–03 and

should be submitted by April 11, 1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.10

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–7193 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Privacy Act of 1974: Deletion of a

System of Records Notice

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of

records notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation is deleting the following

system from its inventory of Privacy Act

systems of records notices.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Crystal M. Bush, Privacy Coordinator,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202) 366–9713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with the Privacy Act of

1974, the Department of Transportation

conducted a review of several of its

Privacy Act systems of records and

determined the following records are no

longer kept by the Department of

Transportation.

System No. System name

DOT/OST 064 ........... Mobility Assignment

Candidate File.

Dated: March 13, 1997.

Crystal M. Bush,

Privacy Act Coordinator.

[FR Doc. 97–7194 Filed 3–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–97–17]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before April 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–