21226 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).

ongoing assessments of environmental

impacts.

The staff also conducted an analysis

of plant operation with severe accident

mitigation design alternatives

(SAMDAs) and concluded that none of

the SAMDAs, beyond three procedural

changes that the applicant committed to

implement, would be cost-beneficial for

further mitigating environmental

impacts.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21 day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Scott F. Newberry,

Director, License Renewal and Environmental

Review Project Directorate, Associate Director

for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10610 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499]

Houston Lighting & Power Co., City

Public Service Board of San Antonio,

Central Power & Light Co., City of

Austin, TX, South Texas Project, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance and

Availability of NUREG

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

has issued NUREG–1517, ‘‘Report of the

South Texas Project Allegations Review

Team.’’ This report provides the results

of the South Texas Project Allegations

Review Team.

This team was formed to obtain and

review allegations from individuals

associated with three attorneys who had

contacted congressional staff members

from the Subcommittee on Oversight

and Investigations of the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Committee on Energy

and Commerce. The allegers were

employed in various capacities at

Houston Lighting and Power

Company’s, et al., South Texas Project

Electric Generating Station, and

therefore, the allegations are confined to

this site.

Copies of the report have been placed

in the NRC’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level,

Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local

Public Document Room for the South

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Wharton

County Junior College, J.M. Hodges

Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway,

Wharton, Texas 77488. Copies of the

report may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Post Office

Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013–

7082. GPO deposit account holders may

charge their order by calling 202/275–

2060. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence E. Kokajko, Team Leader,

Project Directorate, IV–1, Division of Reactor

Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–10609 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–424–OLA–3 50–425–OLA–

3; ASLBP No. 96–671–01–OLA–3]

In the Matter of: Georgia Power

Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2);

Evidentiary Hearing; Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board

Before Administrative Judges: Peter B.

Bloch, Chair, Dr. James H. Carpenter, Thomas

D. Murphy.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.752, the public

evidentiary hearing will continue at 9

am on May 15–18, 1995, at the Hearing

Room (T 3 B45), Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

The purpose of the hearing is to hear

motions concerning the admissibility of

evidence and to receive evidence

concerning alleged misrepresentations

about diesel generators at the Vogtle

Nuclear Power Plant. The hearing is

expected to continue at 1 pm in

Augusta, Georgia on May 22 at a place

to be designated. It will continue in

session for several weeks, in Augusta,

Georgia and in Rockville, Maryland

until the hearing is completed.

For the Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board.

Peter B. Bloch,

Chair.

[FR Doc. 95–10611 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35642; File No. SR–NASD–

95–11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

National Association of Securities

Dealers Inc.; Notice of Filing of

Proposed Rule Change Relating to

Requiring Use of the Facilities of a

Registered Clearing Agency for the

Clearance of Transactions in

Corporate Debt Securities

April 24, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

April 10, 1995, the National Association

of Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) a

proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which items

have been prepared primarily by the

NASD. 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 NASD is proposing to amend its

Uniform Practice Code (‘‘UPC’’) to add

a new section 72 to require members

that are participants in a registered

clearing agency to use the facilities of a

registered clearing agency for the

clearance of securities transactions

between members in corporate debt

securities.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

NASD 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. Summaries of the

most significant aspects of such

statements are set forth in sections (A),

(B), and (C) below.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The NASD has observed that

approximately thirty percent of all

transactions in corporate bonds are

being compared, cleared, and settled

broker-to-broker or ex-clearing (i.e.,

without the use of the facilities of a

registered clearing agency). Clearing

such transactions broker-to-broker is

labor intensive, requires more time to

complete, and results in more fails than

transactions processed through a

clearing agency. The labor intensive

nature of broker-to-broker processing

introduces errors into the process from

keystroke errors, manual document

handling errors, delivery errors, and

payment errors. Because such broker-tobroker clearance is labor intensive, it

also generally requires more time to

complete. Finally, both of these factors

increase the systemic clearance risk by
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21227

2The NASD also has been advised that

enhancements to the National Securities Clearing

Corporation’s Fixed Income Transaction System to

facilitate the corporate bond comparison process

became effective October 21, 1994. This facility

enhancement accelerates the comparison cycle to

trade date which allows members to view their

compared corporate bond trades on T+1. This

acceleration of the comparison cycle will aid the

industry’s transition to T+3 settlement.

3For example, the NASD considered mandating

the use of the facilities of a registered clearing

agency for other types of securities such as unit

investment trusts, private label collateralized

mortgage obligations, synthetic stripped coupons,

and government securities but concluded that it

would be inadvisable to adopt such a mandate until

the special pricing and processing requirements for

these securities is fully understood and resolved.

Similarly, if the NASD is asked to exempt certain

issues or transactions in certain issues of corporate

debt because of problems associated with clearing

transactions in such issues through the facilities of

a registered clearing agency, the exemptive power

provided in the proposed rule change will permit

the NASD to resolve such problems. 4 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).

5 17 CFR 200.30–(a)(12) (1994).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1994).

3See letter from Michael D. Pierson, Senior

Attorney, PSE, to Jennifer S. Choi, Attorney,

Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated March 2,

1995. Amendment No. 1 added .02 of the

Commentary to the proposed rule change.

increasing the number of trade fails and

the potential financial exposure to

members.

The NASD is concerned that the

problems associated with broker-tobroker clearance of corporate bond

trades is creating avoidable risks and

inefficiencies, as described above, in the

clearance and settlement system. The

NASD also is concerned that the

implementation of T+3 settlement of

securities transactions scheduled to

occur on June 7, 1995, will exacerbate

the risks and inefficiencies inherent in

clearing corporate bond transactions

broker-to-broker. Accordingly, in order

to reduce or eliminate these risks and

inefficiencies, the NASD is proposing to

amend the UPC to adopt a new section

72 to require a member of its agent that

participates in a registered clearing

agency to use the facilities of a clearing

agency to clear eligible transactions in

corporate debt securities.2

Finally, the proposed rule change

provides that the NASD may exempt

any transaction or class of transactions

in corporate debt securities from the

provisions of the rule as may be

necessary to accommodate special

circumstances related to the clearance of

such transactions or class of

transactions. The NASD anticipates that

this provision will be used only in the

event special pricing and processing

problems related to particular corporate

debt securities make using the facilities

of a registered clearing agency difficult

or impossible and outweighed the

benefits of using the facilities of a

registered clearing agency.3

Because the proposed rule change

may facilitate the implementation of the

industry’s transaction to a T+3

settlement scheduled to occur on June 7,

1995, the NASD will make the proposed

rule change effective as soon after the

Commission approval as it is possible to

publish a Notice to Members

announcing approval. The proposed

rule change will be effective two weeks

following publication of the Notice to

Members announcing Commission

approval.

The NASD believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the

Act 4 in that requiring such transactions

to be cleared through the facilities of a

registered clearing agency will reduce

the number of trade fails and reduce or

eliminate risks and inefficiencies caused

by broker-to-broker clearance of such

transactions, thereby enhancing the

functioning of the clearance and

settlement system for the benefit of all

securities market participants.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The NASD does not believe that the

proposed rule change will result in any

burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neither

solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within thirty-five 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

ninety 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 NASD consents, the

Commission will:

(A) By order approve such 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 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, DC 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. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the NASD.

All submissions should refer to the

file No. SR–NASD–95–11 and should be

submitted by May 22, 1995.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.5

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10607 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35646; File No. SR–PSE–

95–02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific

Stock Exchange Inc.; Order Granting

Approval to Proposed Rule Change

Relating to Obligations for Regulatory

Cooperation

April 25, 1995.

On February 8, 1995, the Pacific Stock

Exchange Incorporated (‘‘PSE’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to

amend its rules to require regulatory

cooperation by members, member

organizations, and others over whom

the Exchange has jurisdiction with

certain investigations and proceedings

that are initiated by another selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’)

pursuant to a regulatory agreement. On

March 3, 1995, the Exchange submitted

to the Commission Amendment No. 1 to

the proposed rule change.3

The proposed rule change, including

Amendment No. 1, was published for

comment in Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 35497 (Mar. 15, 1995), 60

FR 14991 (Mar. 21, 1995). No comments

were received on the proposal.

The Exchange is proposing to amend

Rule 10.2, relating to Exchange