26668 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37003

(Mar. 21, 1996), 61 FR 13913 (Mar. 28, 1996).

3 15 U.S.C. 78f.

4 15 U.S.C. 7f(b)(5). 5 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

or far term series, generally $25, except:

(i) where the strike price exceeds $500,

the interval may be $50; and (ii) where

the strike price exceeds $1,000, the

interval may be $100. Also, where strike

price intervals would be greater than $5,

the Exchange may list alternative strike

prices at $5 intervals in response to

demonstrated customer interest or

specialist request.

The Exchange’s proposed rule change

would establish new strike price

intervals of: (i) $5 for the three

consecutive near-term months; (ii) $10

for the fourth month; and (iii) $30 for

the fifth month. However, the Exchange

would retain the ability to list

alternative strike prices at $5 intervals

in response to demonstrated customer

interest or specialist request, as well as

to list strike prices at wider intervals.

The Exchange believes the continued

ability to add strike prices at alternative

$5 intervals in response to customer

interest will maintain flexibility in the

marketplace and will preserve specific

trading opportunities.

The current version of Exchange Rule

1101A(a) was adopted in 1996,2 and

was likewise intended to improve the

Exchange’s strike price dissemination

policy. Based on its experience

implementing Rule 1101A(a), the

Exchange has determined to revise and

simplify the Rule for easier

administration. The Exchange believes

the revised Rule will more accurately

reflect the needs of the marketplace.

Specifically, basing the strike price

interval on an option’s value (in the case

of option greater than $500 or $1000)

has not proven useful. The Exchange

believes that widening the interval in

far-term series should continue to

reduce the number of outstanding series

listed.

The Exchange also believes that

listing far-term series and long-term

options at wider strike price intervals

should improve the efficiency of

quotation dissemination and facilitate

speedy pricing by reducing the number

of listed strike prices. The Exchange

believes the immediate effect should be

a reduction in the number of index

option strike prices. Furthermore, the

Exchange believes it will experience a

reduction in its systems capacity and

usage as well as its operational burdens.

For instance, strike prices currently

occupy trading floor screen space and

consume transmission line traffic to

OPRA and outside vendors that

disseminate Exchange trading

information. Further, the role of the

specialist in monitoring multitudes of

strike prices should be enhanced.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes the proposed

rule change is consistent with Section 6

of the Act,3 in general, and with Section

6(b)(5),4 in particular, in that it is

designed to promote just and equitable

principles of trade; foster cooperation

and coordination with persons engaged

in regulating, clearing, settling,

processing information with respect to,

and facilitating transactions in

securities; and remove impediments to

and perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market

system. The Exchange further believes

that the proposed rule change will

protect investors and the public interest

by eliminating excess strike prices,

thereby improving quotation

dissemination capabilities, while

maintaining investors’ flexibility to

better trailer index option trading to

meet their investment objectives.

According to the Exchange, the

proposed rule change strikes a

reasonable balance between reducing

option series and accommodating the

needs of investors.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe the

proposed rule change will impose any

inappropriate burden on completion.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

The Exchange did not solicit or

receive written comments with respect

to the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of Proposed

Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

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 Exchange 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 date, 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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submissions, 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 persons, 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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. 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-Phlx–98–09

and should be submitted by June 3,

1998.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulations, pursuant to delegated

authority.5

Margaret H. McFarland

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12705 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2819]

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs;

Public Meeting on Preparations for an

International Agreement Through the

United Nations Environment Program

on Persistent Organic Pollutants

SUMMARY: The United States

government, through an interagency

working group chaired by the U.S.

Department of State, is preparing for

negotiations through the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP) on a

global agreement to address certain

persistent organic pollutants that result

in risks of a transboundary nature. The

first negotiating session is scheduled to

take place in Montreal, Canada, on June

29–July 3 this year. The Department of

State will host a public meeting in

advance of this session to outline issues

likely to arise in the context of the

negotiations. The meeting will take

place on Wednesday, June 3 from

10:30–12:30 in Room 1912 of the U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices 26669

Department of State, 2201 C Street

Northwest, Washington, D.C. to

expedite their entrance into the

building, attendees should provide

Eunice Mourning (tel. 202–647–9266,

fax 202–647–5947) with their date of

birth and social security number by

close of business on Monday, June 1.

Attendees should enter at the ‘‘C’’ Street

entrance and bring picture identification

with them.

For further information, please

contact Mr. Trigg Talley, U.S.

Department of State, OES/ENV, Room

4325, 2201 C Street NW, Washington,

D.C. 20520. Phone 202–647–5808, fax

202–647–5947.

Supplementary Information: The United

States, through an interagency working

group chaired by the U.S. Department of

State, is preparing for negotiations

through the U.N. Environment

Programme (UNEP) on an agreement

that will establish global controls on

certain pollutants that, because of their

physico-chemical properties, pose risks

of a transboundary or global nature.

These pollutants, which have been

termed ‘‘persistent organic pollutants’’

in a number of international

discussions, share four characteristics:

they are toxic, persist in the

environment for long periods of time,

bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of

humans and animals, and are prone to

long-distance transport. These

pollutants are generally heavily

controlled in the United States. Wellknown examples of chemicals that

exhibit these characteristics include

dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane

(DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) and polychlorinated

dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and

polychlorinated dibenzo-furans

(PCDFs).

POPs have been linked to a variety of

adverse effects on humans and wildlife,

including immune and metabolic

system dysfunction, neurological

deficits, reproductive abnormalities, and

cancer. POPs biomagnify through the

food chain, and have been measured in

fatty tissue (including in fish and

marine mammals consumed by humans)

at concentrations many orders of

magnitude greater than those found in

the surrounding environment. Because

of these characteristics, several POPs

continue to raise concerns decades after

controls have been put into place in the

United States. For example, DDT

remains ubiquitous in the environment

and human tissue twenty-five years after

its control in the United States.

Likewise, continuing PCB

contamination led to fish advisories in

watersheds in 34 U.S. states in 1995

(including the Great Lakes), some

twenty years after initial controls.

Certain POPs also behave in a manner

that can result in effects that are

transboundary or global in nature. Many

of these POPs are ‘‘semi-volatile,’’

meaning that they tend to vaporize at

warmer temperatures and condense as

the air gets cooler. Due to prevailing

atmospheric circulation patterns, and

the propensity of certain POPs for

successive re-volatilization, there is

evidence to support the systematic

migration of such substances to cooler

latitudes. Deposition in the Arctic

region is particularly significant. POPs

can also travel long distance through

other mechanisms as well.

Studies have identified significant

deposits of many of these chemicals in

the tissues of fish, mammals, birds and

humans in locations thousands of miles

from any known source. Studies have in

particular found deposits of a number of

POPs in the Arctic environment where

they have been measured at high levels

in humans and wildlife. For certain

native populations whose traditional

diet is heavy in fish and marine

mammals, measured levels of several

POPs, including DDT and PCBs,

approach or exceed levels of concern.

The United States and many other

countries have already taken substantial

action to address risks associated with

the pollutants identified for action in

international bodies. Nonetheless,

certain of them remain in use and

production in parts of the world, and

there appears to be continuing

transboundary deposition of a number

of these chemicals. For example,

analysis of DDT samples taken in North

America suggest fairly recent

deposition, probably from sources in the

tropics.

In response to mounting evidence of

potentially significant transboundary

deposition of and exposure to these

chemicals, the United States has for

some time supported action on the most

problematic POPs in several regional

bodies, in addition to UNEP’s work. In

North America, the United Stats has

been involved in efforts to address POPs

risks through the Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement, as well as through

the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation. Finally, the

United States and over 50 other

countries recently concluded

negotiations on a protocol on persistent

organic pollutants through the U.N.

Economic Commission for Europe’s

Convention on Long-Range

Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP).

The protocol calls for prohibitions or

restrictions on thirteen pesticides and

commercial chemicals (DDT, PCBs,

aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, toxaphene,

mirex, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor,

chlordane, chlordecone,

hexabromobipheny, and

hexachlorocyclohexane); and controls

on significant emissions from releases

from stationary sources of four byproducts of industrial processes

(PCDDs, PCDFs, hexachlorobenzene and

certain polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons). All of these pollutants

are subject to stringent controls in the

United States. The agreement also

establishes a mechanism for considering

action on additional pollutants once the

agreement comes into force. More

information on this protocol and the

LRTAP Convention can be found at

http://www.unece.org.

Activities to Date through the U.N.

Environment Program

The United States and other countries

recognized several years ago that the

global nature of POPs dispersion (and

particularly continuing releases in

different regions of the world) meant

that regional activities would not be

sufficient to fully address the problem.

Accordingly, preparatory work was

begun through UNEP and other

technical organizations in 1995 toward

global action to address some of the

most harmful persistent organic

pollutants. Countries identified twelve

pollutants in particular for early

assessment and global action.

The pollutants identified include nine

pesticides, eight of which are banned for

use in the United States (DDT,

chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin,

toxaphene, mirex, and

hexachlorobenzene; the ninth,

heptachlor, is severely restricted); PCBs,

a family of industrial chemicals that are

no longer produced in the United States

but which remain in use in electrical

equipment and other uses; and PCDDs

and PCDFs, two toxic by by-products of

combustion and other industrial

processes.

Countries recognized that addressing

these three different classes of POP will

require different management

approaches. For example, commercially

produced POPs such as pesticides

would be subject to use and production

controls; in contrast, addressing PCDDs

and PCDFs will require a variety of

measures aimed at reducing releases of

PCDDs into the environment. Finally, to

the extent that there are significant

stocks of PCB equipment as well as

other POPs stockpiles, such stocks

would need to be managed and

disposed of in an environmentally

sound manner.

In December 1995, 105 countries at

the Washington Conference on Land-
26670 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Notices

Based Sources of Marine Pollution

called for the development of a global

legally binding instrument addressing

the twelve substances, as well as the

development of a procedure for

consideration of additional pollutants in

the future. An Ad Hock Working Group

on POPs under the Intergovernmental

Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS),

meeting in June 1996, also concluded

that a global agreement was necessary,

and issued a set of recommendations to

the U.N. Environment Program

regarding specific types of actions. In

February 1997, the U.N. Environment

Program authorized establishment of an

international negotiating committee, to

work on the basis of a negotiating

mandate provided in UNEP Decision

19/13C. The Decision, which closely

reflects the recommendations of the

IFCS Ad Hock Working Group on POPs,

can be found in full on the internet on

the POPs Home Page, which can be

accessed through UNEP’s Chemicals

Home Page (http://irptc.unep.ch). The

POPs Home Page contains the IFCS

recommendations and other information

on POPs and related activities as well.

Among other things, countries

represented in the U.N. Environment

Program’s Governing Council concluded

that international action, including a

global legally binding instrument, is

required to reduce the risks to human

health and the environment arising from

the release of the twelve specific POPs.

Countries decided that immediate

international action should be initiated

to protect human health and the

environment through measures which

will reduce and/or eliminate the

emissions and discharges of the twelve

POPs and, where appropriate, eliminate

production and subsequently the

remaining use of those POPs that are

intentionally produced. Countries

recognized that such action should

include: use of separate, differentiated

approaches to take action on pesticides,

industrial chemicals, and

unintentionally produced by-products

and contaminants; use of transition

periods, with phased implementation

for various proposed actions; careful

and efficient management of existing

stocks of the specified persistent organic

pollutants and, where necessary and

feasible, their elimination; training in

enforcement and monitoring of use to

discourage the misuse of POP

pesticides; and remediation of

contaminated sites and environmental

reservoirs, where feasible and

practicable taking into account national

and regional considerations in the light

of the global significance of the

problem.

The Decision calls for the U.N.

Environment Program to prepare for and

convene, together with the World

Health Organization and other relevant

international organizations, an

intergovernmental negotiating

committee, with a mandate to prepare

an international legally binding

instrument for implementing

international action initially beginning

with the twelve specified POPs and to

take into account the conclusions and

recommendations of the Ad Hoc

Working Group on Persistent Organic

Pollutants of the Intergovernmental

Forum on Chemical Safety. It also notes

the need to develop science-based

criteria and a procedure for identifying

additional persistent organic pollutants

as candidates for future international

action, and requests the

intergovernmental negotiating

committee to establish, at its first

meeting, an expert group to carry out

this work. It specifies that the group

should work expeditiously, proceeding

concurrently with the

intergovernmental negotiating

committee process, to develop criteria

for consideration by the

intergovernmental negotiating

committee in the negotiation of a legally

binding instrument. It specifies that the

process should incorporate criteria

pertaining to persistence,

bioaccumulation, toxicity and exposure

in different regions and should take into

account the potential for regional and

global transport including dispersion

mechanisms for the atmosphere and the

hydrosphere, migratory species and the

need to reflect possible influences of

marine transport and tropical climates.

The Decision also calls for the U.N.

Environment Program to undertake a

variety of actions to lead to more

effective ways of addressing specific

aspects of POPs.

The Decision calls for negotiations to

begin this year and to be completed by

the year 2000. It is expected that

negotiating sessions will occur every six

months or so, with technical work

occurring in the interim.

The Administration is preparing its

position for this negotiation, and has

scheduled a public meeting to be held

on Wednesday, June 3 from 10:30 to

12:30 in Room 1912 of the U.S.

Department of State. Members of the

interagency working group will provide

an overview of U.S. preparations for the

first meeting. The U.S. Department of

State is issuing this notice to help

ensure that potentially affected parties

are aware of and knowledgeable about

these negotiations. In subsequent

briefings, we will be contacting

organizations that have expressed an

interest by mail or fax. Those

organizations that cannot attend the

June 3 meeting, but wish to remain

informed, should provide Mr. Trigg

Talley of the Department of State (202–

647–5808; tel. 202–647–5947 fax;

LTalley@state.gov) with their address,

and telephone and fax numbers.

Dated: May 8, 1998.

Trigg Talley,

Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of

Environmental Policy.

[FR Doc. 98–12748 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements; Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice

announces that the Information

Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted

below have been forwarded to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and approval. The ICRs describe

the nature of the information collections

and their expected burden. The Federal

Register Notice with a 60-day comment

period soliciting comments on the

following information collection was

published on February 19, 1998 [62 FR

8517].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Robinson, NHTSA Information

Collection Clearance Officer at (202)

366–9456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

(1) Title: Assigning DOT code

Numbers to Glazing Material

Manufacturers.

OMB Control Number: 2127–0038.

Type Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Abstract: Title 49, Chapter 30115 of

the U.S. Code specifies that the

Secretary of Transportation shall require

every manufacturer or distributor of a

motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment to furnish the distributor or

dealer at the time of delivery

certification that each item of motor