Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices 22083

contacts with the NRC reminding MTA of the

need to transfer the gauge to an authorized

recipient. If MTA had aggressively responded

to the Notice of a Violation issued by the

NRC on September 7, 1994, or the telephone

call from Mr. Walt Pasciak on August 29,

1994, the security violation could have either

been prevented, or corrected, or identified if

the gauge was already missing.

MTA’s failure to do so is considered

particularly egregious. Even if MTA had not

received a copy of the 1992 Order, it had

several conversations with NRC staff

regarding the status of the gauge between

August 1992 and November 1994, and had

received the September 7, 1994 Notice of

Violation which provided prior opportunities

to prevent or correct this violation. If MTA

had promptly acted to locate and transfer the

gauge to an authorized recipient at that time,

the security violation and subsequent loss of

the gauge might have been prevented.

Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for

these factors.

With respect to the duration factor, while

MTA contends that its office is typically a

secure location, and the gauge being out of

its locked storage cabinet is not as risky a

situation as it might seem, MTA’s action to

remove the gauge from its secure location

without taking appropriate measures for an

extended period, as the RSO recollects,

provided an appropriate basis for excalating

the penalty on this factor. Therefore, no

mitigation of this factor is warranted.

Escalation of the penalty by 200% to

emphasize the importance of maintaining a

valid license is no longer warranted due to

MTA’s assertion that they do not intend to

posses any NRC licensed material in the

future. Therefore, the penalty is reduced to

$2,000.

Furthermore, notwithstanding MTA’s

contention, the NRC does not consider the

penalty excessive, particularly given the fact

that the security violation resulted in a loss

or theft of radioactive material.

NRC Conclusion

The NRC has concluded that MTA did not

provide an adequate basis for mitigation of

the civil penalty to $500. Given the

significance of the failure to maintain

security of radioactive materials, and the loss

of the gauge that occurred in this case, a civil

penalty in the amount of $2,000 should be

imposed.

[FR Doc. 95–11029 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP); Deadline for Submission of

Petitions in the 1995 Annual GSP

Review

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representatives.

ACTION: Notice of the 1995 Annual GSP

Review.

SUMMARY: The notice announces the

deadline for the submission of petitions

in the 1995 Annual GSP Review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United

States Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, NW., Room 518, Washington, DC

20506. The telephone number is (202)

395–6971.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Announcement of 1995 Annual GSP

Review

The GSP regulations (15 CFR 2007.3

et seq.) provided for annual review,

unless otherwise specified by Federal

Register notice. Notice is hereby given

that, in order to be considered in the

1995 Annual GSP Review, all petitions

to modify the list of articles eligible for

duty-free treatment under the GSP and

requests to review the GSP status of any

beneficiary developing country must be

received by the GSP Subcommittee no

later than 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 14,

1995. Petitions submitted after the

deadline will not be considered for

review and will be returned to the

petitioner. The GSP provides for the

duty-free importation of designated

articles when imported from designated

beneficiary developing countries. The

GSP is authorized by Title V the Trade

Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Trade Act’’)

(19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.), and was

implemented by Executive Order 11888

of November 24, 1975, and modified by

subsequent Executive Orders and

Presidential Proclamations.

A. 1995 Annual GSP Review

Interested parties or foreign

governments may submit petitions: (1)

To designate additional articles as

eligible for GSP; (2) to withdraw,

suspend or limit GSP duty-free

treatment accorded either to eligible

articles under the GSP or to individual

beneficiary developing countries with

respect to specific GSP eligible articles;

(3) to waive the competitive need limits

for individual beneficiary developing

countries with respect to specific GSP

eligible articles; (4) to have the GSP

status of any eligible beneficiary

developing country reviewed with

respect to any of the designation criteria

listed in sections 502(b) or 502(c) of the

Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2462 (b) and (c));

and, (5) to otherwise modify GSP

coverage.

B. Identification of Product Requests

With Respect to the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTS) was

implemented by the United States on

January 1, 1989, and replaces the former

Tariff Schedules of the United States

nomenclature. All product petitions

must include a detailed description of

the product and the HTS subheading in

which the product is classified.

C. Submission of Petitions and Requests

Petitions to modify GSP treatment

should be addressed to GSP

Subcommittee, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Room 518, Washington, DC 20506. All

such submissions must conform with

the GSP regulations, which are set forth

at 15 CFR 2007. These regulations were

published in the Federal Register on

Tuesday, February 11, 1986 (FR 5035).

The regulations are printed in ‘‘A Guide

to the U.S. Generalized System of

Preferences (GSP)’’ (August 1991) (‘‘GSP

Guide’’). Information submitted will be

subject to public inspection by

appointment only with the staff of the

USTR Public Reading Room, except for

information granted ‘‘business

confidential’’ status pursuant to 15 CFR

2003.6 and other qualifying information

submitted in confidence pursuant to 15

CFR 2007.7. An original and fourteen

(14) copies of each petition must be

submitted in English. If the petition

contains business confidential

information, an original and fourteen

(14) copies of a nonconfidential version

of the submission along with an original

and fourteen (14) copies of the

confidential version must be submitted.

In addition, the submission containing

confidential information should be

clearly marked ‘‘confidential’’ at the top

and bottom of each and every page of

the submission. The version that does

not contain business confidential

information (the public version) should

also be clearly marked at the top and

bottom of each page (either ‘‘public

version’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’).

Petitioners are strongly advised to

review the GSP regulations. Petitioners

are reminded that submissions that do

not provide all information required by

§ 2007.1 of the GSP regulations will not

be accepted for review except upon a

detailed showing in the submission that

the petitioner made a good faith effort

to obtain the information required.

These requirements will be strictly

enforced. Petitions with respect to

competitive need waivers must meet the

informational requirements for product

addition requests in § 2007.1(c). A

model petition format is available from

the GSP Subcommittee and is included

in the GSP Guide. Petitioners are

requested to use this model petition

format so as to ensure that all

informational requirements are met.

Furthermore, interested parties
22084 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Notices

1 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes to:

(1) clarify the name of the Real Estate Index; (2)

specify that the Real Estate Index will be initialized

at a value of 100; and (3) amend the formula for

calculating the value of the Real Estate Index. See

Letter from Claire McGrath, Managing Director and

Special Counsel, Amex, to Michael Walinskas,

Branch Chief, Office of Market Supervision

(‘‘OMS’’), Division of Market Regulation

(‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated April 4, 1995.

2The proposal incorrectly indicates that Section

107A requires a market value of not less than $20

million. Section 107A was recently amended to set

the minimum market value to $4 million. See

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34765

(September 30, 1994), 59 FR 51220 (October 7,

1994).

3 If the Closing Index Level is lower than the level

of the Index at the time of the offering, holders will

receive at least 90% of the original issue price. The

minimum level that holders will receive at maturity

will be set at the time of the offering of the Notes.

submitting petitions that request action

with respect to specific products should

list on the first page of the petition the

following information: (1) The requested

action; (2) the HTS subheading in which

the product is classified; and, (3) if

applicable, the relevant beneficiary

developing country.

Frederick L. Montgomery,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 95–11051 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3901–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35651; File SR–Amex–95–

05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed

Rule Change by the American Stock

Exchange, Inc., Relating to the Listing

and Trading of Indexed Term Notes

Linked to the Real Estate Index

April 27, 1995.

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 February 16, 1995,

the American Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the Amex. On April 4,

1995, the Exchange filed Amendment

No. 1 to the proposal.1 The Commission

is publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change,

as amended, from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to approve for

listing and trading under Section 107A

of the Amex Company Guide (‘‘Guide’’)

intermediate-term, indexed notes

(‘‘Notes’’) whose value will be linked in

part to changes in the level of the Real

Estate Index (‘‘Index’’), a new index

designed to reflect general movements

in the underlying market for commercial

real estate. The Index is calculated by

combining the performance of two

separate equity indexes—one comprised

entirely of large, actively traded Real

Estate Investment Trusts (‘‘REIT50

Index’’), and the other being the Russell

2000 Index, a broad-based index

comprised of small capitalization stocks

(‘‘Russell 2000’’). The text of the

proposed rule change is available at the

Office of the Secretary, the Amex, and

at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and the

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

Exchange 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

Amex 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 the

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

Under Section 107 (Other Securities)

of the Guide, the Exchange may approve

for listing and trading securities which

cannot be readily categorized under the

listing criteria for common and

preferred stocks, bonds, debentures, and

warrants. The Amex now proposes to

list for trading under Section 107A of

the Guide, intermediate-term, indexed

notes, the value of which can be

expected to fluctuate based on changes

in the level of an index designed to

reflect general movements in the

underlying market for commercial real

estate by combining the performance of

two separate equity indexes—one

comprised entirely of large, actively

trade real estate investment trusts

(‘‘REITS’’), i.e., the REIT50 Index, and

the other a broad-based index of small

capitalization stocks, i.e., the Russell

2000.

Background

According to the Exchange, by some

estimates over half of the wealth in the

United States and as much as one-fourth

of total corporate value are in the form

of real estate. In addition, the Exchange

represents that studies of asset

allocation demonstrate clear

diversification benefits from allocating a

portion of an investment portfolio to

real estate as a separate asset class.

Traditional investment in a diversified

portfolio of commercial real estate,

however, is not possible for most

investors, in the Exchange’s opinion,

because of high transaction costs,

market illiquidity, and the extremely

large investment required to purchase a

pool of properties diversified across

different property types and geographic

regions.

The Exchange further represents that

research has demonstrated that the

performance associated with an index of

REITs may be attributed partly to

movements in the underlying real estate

market and partly to the small

capitalization nature of REIT securities.

Therefore, by subtracting a portion of

the returns associated with a broadbased small capitalization stock index

from the returns generated by an index

of REITs, the Exchange believes that an

index can be generated that more

closely reflects the performance of the

underlying real estate market. The

Exchange states that the proposed Notes

are intended to use this method to

provide an exchange-listed alternative

for investors who wish to gain exposure

to general movements in the real estate

sector or whose portfolios are heavily

weighted in real estate and wish to shed

some of that exposure.

Note Structure

The proposed Notes will conform to

the listing guidelines under Section

107A of the Guide which provide, in

part, that such issues have: (1) a public

distribution of at least one million

trading units; (2) a minimum of 400

holders; and (3) a market value of not

less than $4 million.2 The Notes will

have a term of two to five years and may

provide for periodic payments to

holders. Upon maturity, holders will

receive not less than 90% of the original

issue price plus an amount in U.S.

dollars equal to a participation rate (i.e.,

a specified percentage) multiplied by

the increase, if any, in the level of the

Index at the time of the offering and the

average of the closing Index level on the

first ten days of the last twenty days

preceding maturity (‘‘Closing Index

Level’’).3

The Notes may not be redeemed prior

to maturity and holders of the Notes

have no claim to the securities

underlying the Index. Thus, holders will

be able to liquidate their investment