36726 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

those fines that are not in excess of $2,500 are

subject to the periodic reporting requirements of

SEC Rule 19d–1(c).

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1).

8 17 CFR 240.11Ac1–4.

9See Securities Exchange Act Release 37619A

(September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (September 12,

1996)(‘‘Adopting Release’’).

10A specialist is not displaying customer limit

orders immediately if the specialist regularly

executes customer limit orders at, for example, the

27th second after receipt. As stated in the Adopting

Release, the requirement that a limit order be

displayed ‘‘immediately’’ means that the limit order

must be displayed as soon as practicable, but no

later than 30 seconds after receipt under normal

market conditions. This 30 seconds is an outer limit

under normal market conditions and is not to be

interpreted as a 30-second safe harbor.

11For example, the Commission expects that the

Exchange would not issue several cautionary letters

before instituting the fines under the Plan or

aggregate multiple violations of the rules before

instituting abbreviated disciplinary procedures

under the Plan or, if necessary, full disciplinary

procedures.

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

13 17 CFR 240.19d–1(c)(2).

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(2).

1Under the Social Security Independence and

Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No.

103–296, effective March 31, 1995, SSA became an

also retains the option of bringing

violations of rules subject to NYSE Rule

476A to full disciplinary proceedings.

The Exchange proposed that the failure

to comply with the provisions of (1)

Rule 392 and Rule 460.30 which require

notification to the Exchange by member

organizations when they are

participating in or engaging in certain

activities related to an offering of

securities listed on the Exchange; (2)

Rule 80A(b) which prohibits entry of

stop orders for the remainder of any

trading day on which ‘‘sidecar’’

procedures have been invoked; (3) Rule

79A.15 which requires specialists to

publish bids and offers upon receipt of

limit orders; and (4) Rule 105 and its

Guidelines regarding specialists’

speciality stock options transactions and

the reporting of such transactions be

included in the rule. The Exchange

proposed the additions to broaden the

regulatory responses available to the

Exchange in effectively inducing

compliance with all aspects of the rules.

III. Discussion

The Commission believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange, and, in particular,

with Section 6(b)(5) which requires that

the rules of an exchange be designed to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to remove impediments and to

perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market

system, and, in general, to protect

investors and the public interest.3

The Exchange’s proposal is also

consistent with the requirements in

Sections 6(b)(1) 4 and 6(b)(6) 5 requiring

that the rules of an exchange enforce

compliance and provide appropriate

discipline for violations of Commission

and Exchange rules. Moreover, because

NYSE Rule 476A provides procedural

rights to the person fined and permits a

disciplined person to request a full

hearing on the matter, the proposal

provides a fair procedure for the

disciplining of members and persons

associated with members, consistent

with Sections 6(b)(7) 6 and 6(d)(1) 7 of

the Act.

The Commission believes that the

Exchange’s proposal, adding five

additional rules to those subject to the

imposition of fines under Rule 476A

reinforces the obligations of exchange

specialists. Most notably, by adding

NYSE Rule 79A.15 to the MRVP, the

Commission believes that the Exchange

is emphasizing the importance of the

obligation of an exchange specialist to

immediately display certain customer

limit orders in accordance with the

Commission’s Limit Order Display

Rule 8 and NYSE Rule 79A.15. The

Commission believes that displaying

customer limit orders benefits investors

by providing enhanced execution

opportunities and improved

transparency.9

The Commission expects that the

Exchange has the appropriate

surveillance procedures to easily

identify a specialist who fails to display

a customer limit order immediately or is

relying on an automated system that

does not display limit orders

immediately.10 The Commission,

therefore, believes that because certain

violations of the Limit Order Rule are

amenable to efficient and equitable

enforcement they are appropriate for

inclusion in NYSE Rule 476A. The

Commission expects, however, because

a violation of NYSE Rule 79A.15

amounts to a violation of a federal

securities law, that the Exchange will

err on the side of caution in disposing

of such violations under the Plan.11 The

Commission expects the Exchange to

continue to resolve more serious

violations of rules through the use of

formal disciplinary procedures, as in the

case of an egregious violation or

habitual offender.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange, and, in particular,

with Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5), 6(b)(6),

6(b)(7), 6(d)(1) and 19(d) of the Act.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 12 and Rule

19d–1(c)(2) thereunder,13 that the

proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–98–

02) be, and hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.14

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17834 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Rescission of Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling 87–2(11)

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of Social

Security acquiescence Ruling 87–

2(11)—Butterworth v. Bowen, 796 F.2d

1379 (11th Cir. 1986).

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR

404.985(e), 416.1485(e) and

402.35(b)(2), the Commissioner of Social

Security gives notice of the rescission of

Social Security Acquiescence Ruling

87–2(11).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Sargent, Litigation Staff, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1695.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Social

Security Acquiescence Ruling explains

how we will apply a holding in a

decision of a United States Court of

Appeals that we determine conflicts

with our interpretation of a provision of

the Social Security Act (the Act) or

regulations when the Government has

decided not to seek further review of the

case or is unsuccessful on further

review.

As provided by 20 CFR 404.985(e)(4)

and 416.1485(e)(4), a Social Security

Acquiescence Ruling may be rescinded

as obsolete if we subsequently clarify,

modify or revoke the regulation or

ruling that was the subject of the circuit

court holding for which the

Acquiescence Ruling was issued.

On May 1, 1987, we issued

Acquiescence Ruling 87–2(11) to reflect

the holding in Butterworth v. Bowen,

796 F.2d 1379 (11th Cir. 1986), that the

Social Security Administration’s

Appeals Council 1 is authorized to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36727

independent Agency in the Executive Branch of the

United States Government and was provided

ultimate responsibility for administering the Social

Security and Supplemental Security Income

programs under titles II and XVI of the Act. Prior

to march 31, 1995, the Secretary of Health and

Human Services had such responsibility.

initiate reopening of Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) decisions only when

the decision ‘‘is properly before it.’’ The

court explained several methods by

which an ALJ decision may be properly

before the Appeals Council including

when the Council timely takes own

motion review of a decision.

Furthermore, the court’s holding limited

the reopening jurisdiction of the

Appeals Council by specifically

requiring timely own motion review to

begin within the 60-day time period

provided in 20 CFR 404.969.

Concurrent with the rescission of this

Ruling, we are publishing our final rules

amending sections 404.969 and

416.1469 of Social Security Regulations

Nos. 4 and 16 (20 CFR 404.969 and

416.1469), to clarify when the Appeals

Council has own motion review

authority to reopen and revise ALJ

decisions in accordance with the

provisions of 20 CFR 404.987, 404.988,

416.1487 and 416.1488. The final rules

provide in paragraphs 404.969(d) and

416.1469(d) that if the Appeals Council

is unable to decide within the

applicable 60-day period whether to

review a decision or dismissal, it may

consider at a later time whether the

decision or dismissal should be

reopened and revised under 20 CFR

404.987, 404.988, 416.1487 and

416.1488. Under the final rules, the

Appeals Council’s authority to reopen

and revise ALJ decisions is not limited

by the 60-day period provided in

paragraphs 404.969(a) and 416.1469(a).

Because the final rules address the

Butterworth court’s concerns and

explain that the Appeals Council’s

authority to reopen and revise ALJ

decisions is not subject to the 60-day

period provided in paragraphs

404.969(a) and 416.1469(a), we are

rescinding Acquiescence Ruling 87–

2(11). The final rules and this rescission

restore uniformity to our nationwide

system of rules in accordance with our

commitment to the goal of

administering our programs through

uniform national standards as discussed

in the preamble to the 1998

acquiescence regulations, 63 FR 24927

(May 6, 1998).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security—

Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social

Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.003

Special Benefits for Persons Aged 72 and

Over; 96.004 Social Security—Survivors

Insurance; 96.006 Supplemental Security

Income)

Dated: May 27, 1998.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

[FR Doc. 98–17839 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Intelligence and Research Bureau;

Announcement of FY 1998 Grants

Under the Research and Training

Program on Eastern Europe and the

Independent States of the Former

Soviet Union (Title VIII)

[Public Notice 2846]

On May 5, 1998, Deputy Secretary of

State Strobe Talbott approved the

recommendations of the Advisory

Committee for the Study of Eastern

Europe and the Independent States of

the Former Soviet Union. The Title VIII

program, administered by the

Department of State, seeks to build

expertise among Americans on Russia,

Eurasia, and Eastern Europe through

support for advanced research, language

training, and other activities both in the

US and in the region. FY 1998 grant

recipients are listed below.

1. American Council of Learned

Societies

Grant: $250,000 (EE/Baltic States).

Purpose: To support competitions for

dissertation and postdoctoral research

fellowships and the Junior Scholars

Training Program.

Contact: Jason Parker, Executive

Associate, American Council of Learned

Societies, 228 East 45th Street, New

York, NY 10017–3398, (212) 697–1505

(ext. 134/135), Fax (212) 949–8058,

www.ACLS.org, e-mail:

Jason@ACLS.org.

2. American Council of Teachers of

Russian

Grant: $371,830 (300,000–NIS,

$71,830–EE).

Purpose: To support 64 graduate

students, postdoctoral scholars, and

young faculty in Russian, Eurasian, or

Central European studies for advanced

on-site language training or research.

Contact: Margaret Stephenson, ACTR,

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.,

Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036,

(202) 833–7522, Fax (202) 833–7523,

www.ACTR.org, e-mail:

Stephens@ACTR.org.

3. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

Grant: $126,519 ($95,000–NIS;

$31,519–EE).

Purpose: To provide support for the

Summer Research Laboratory and the

Slavic Reference Service.

Contact: Dianne Merridith, Program

Administrator, Russian and East

European Center, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, 104 International

Studies Building, 910 South Fifth Street,

Champaign, IL 61820, (217) 333–1244,

Fax (217) 333–1582, www.UIUC.edu, email: DianneM@UIUC.EDU

4. Institute of International Education

Grant: $120,000 ($60,000–NIS,

$60,000–EE).

Purpose: To support 15 Professional

Development Fellowships for young

professionals in fields related to public

service and civil policy in the NIS and

Eastern Europe.

Contact: Andrew Small, Institute Of

International Education, US Student

Program Division, 809 United Nations

Plaza, New York, NY 10017–3580, (212)

883–8200, Fax (212) 984–5325,

www.IIE.org, e-mail: ASmall@IIE.org.

5. International Research and

Exchanges Board

Grant: $925,000 ($600,000–NIS;

$325,000–EE).

Purpose: To support its programs for

Individual Advanced Research

Opportunities; Short-term Travel

Grants; Special Projects in Library and

Information Service Grants; and Policy

Forums.

Contact: Paul Ashin, IREX, 1616 H

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006,

(202) 628–8188, www.IREX.org, e-mail:

Pashin@IREX.Org.

6. National Academy of Sciences

Grant: $195,000 ($98,000–NIS,

$97,000–EE).

Purpose: To support four Young

Investigator Programs and 20 grants for

a program on ‘‘Governance in PostCommunist Societies,’’ focusing on

science and democratization and

organized crime, terrorism, and

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Contact: Steven Deets, Office for

Central Europe and Eurasia, National

Academy of Sciences/National Research

Council, 2102 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., (FO 2014), Washington, D.C.

20418, (202) 334–2644, Fax (202) 334–

2614, www.NAS.edu, e-mail:

SDeets@NAS.EDU.

7. National Council for Eurasian and

East European Research

Grant: $1,273,800 ($900,000–NIS;

$373,800,000–EE).

Purpose: To support the Research

Contract and Fellowship Grant

Programs and for the Policy Research

Fellowships for junior postdoctoral

scholars in the NIS.