Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24935

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1994).

3See letter from Karen Aluise, Assistant Vice

President, BSE, to Jennifer Choi, Attorney, Division

of Market Regulation, SEC, dated March 9, 1995.

Amendment No. 1 corrected Exhibit 2 by

referencing the BEACON subscriber Credits as the

fee being amended and deleting unnecessary

language.

4See letter from Karen Aluise, Assistant Vice

President, BSE, to Jennifer Choi, Attorney, Division

of Market Regulation, SEC, dated March 22, 1995.

Amendment No. 2 corrected Exhibit 2 by moving

the phrase ‘‘all trades accumulate for volume

discounts’’ below the schedule of volume

discounts.

5After the Commission published the proposed

rule change for comment, the Exchange, pursuant

to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, filed a rule change

further amending the language of the portion of its

fee schedule entitled ‘‘Transaction Fees’’ that relate

to trade recording and comparison charges, which

is the subject of the current filing. See Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 35630 (Apr. 19, 1995) 60

FR 20541 (Apr. 26, 1995) (noticing the filing and

immediate effectiveness of the proposed rule

change). Although the changes made by the filing

did not affect the substance of this proposed rule

change, they did alter the text of the proposed rule

change as attached in Exhibit 2 of the BSE’s filing.

See File No. SR–BSE–95–04.

6The layoff transaction fees refer to the trade

recording and comparison charges incurred by a

firm as a result of executing trades through layoff

terminals on the floor of the Exchange. These

terminals are firm proprietary systems that are

integrated with the order routing system of the New

York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) and route orders

directly to the NYSE. Telephone conversation with

Karen Aluise and Ken Meeden, BSE, and Glen

Barrentine and Jennifer S. Choi, SEC, on May 3,

1995.

review of the application indicates that

the application does not contain enough

information for NRC to determine

compliance with NRC regulation 10 CFR

part 76. Therefore, USEC has been

notified that it must submit a new

application. Note that this

determination does not constitute a

finding that the GDP operations are

unsafe or in noncompliance.

The public comment period from

April 28, 1995 to June 15, 1995, and the

public meetings scheduled for May 23

and May 24, 1995, have been cancelled.

They will be rescheduled at a later date

when USEC submits the new

application.

Copies of the application for

certification (except for classified and

proprietary portions withheld in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.790,

‘‘Availability of Public Records’’), dated

April 18, 1995, will continue to be

available for public inspection and

copying at the Commission’s Public

Document Room (PDR) and Local Public

Document Rooms (LPDR) established for

the gaseous diffusion plants. Upon

receipt, USEC’s new application will

also be made available at the PDR and

respective LPDR’s. Copies of related

correspondence and staff evaluations

(except for portions withheld in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.790) will

continue to be made available at these

locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Rocio Castaneira, telephone (301)

415–8103; Mr. Carl B. Sawyer,

telephone (301) 415–8174; or Ms. Merri

Horn, telephone (301) 415–8126; Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville Maryland, this 4th day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W.N. Hickey,

Chief, Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel

Cycle Safety and Safeguards.′′

[FR Doc. 95–11483 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB

Review

Summary: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Retirement Board has submitted the

following proposal(s) for the collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval.

Summary of Proposal(s):

(1) Collection title: Annual Earnings

Monitoring

(2) Form(s) submitted: RRB Form G–19

(I), (II), (III), (IV), (V)

(3) OMB Number: 3220–0073

(4) Expiration date of current OMB

clearance: June 30, 1995

(5) Type of request: Revision of a

currently approved collection

(6) Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other forprofit

(7) Estimated annual number of

respondents: 2,700

(8) Total annual responses: 2,700

(9) Total annual reporting hours: 450

(10) Collection description: The report

obtains information about a

survivor annuitant’s employment

and earnings. Under the RRA, an

annuity can be reduced or not paid,

depending on the amount of

earnings and type of work

performed.

Additional Information or Comments:

Copies of the form and supporting

documents can be obtained from Chuck

Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer

(312–751–3363). Comments regarding

the information collection should be

addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad

Retirement Board, 844 North Rush

Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092 and

the OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202–

395–7316), Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10230, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–11458 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35669; File No. SR–BSE–

95–04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston

Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting

Approval to Proposed Rule Change

Relating to the Permanent Approval of

BEACON Subscriber Credits

May 3, 1995.

On February 13, 1995, the Boston

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘BSE’’ 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

seeking permanent approval of the

BEACON subscriber credits. On March

13, 1995, the Exchange submitted to the

Commission Amendment No. 1 to the

proposed rule change,3 and on March

23, 1995, the Exchange submitted

Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule

change.4

The proposed rule change, including

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was

published for comment in Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 35529 (Mar.

23, 1995), 60 FR 16216 (Mar. 29, 1995).

No comments were received on the

proposal.5

The Exchange seeks to obtain

permanent approval of a portion of its

fee schedule that provides credits of

$.25 per trade to all non-self-directed,

electronically routed, Exchange

executed trades. The aggregate credit

per firm is limited to the total monthly

layoff transaction fees charged to that

firm.6 For purposes of the per trade

credit, ‘‘non-self-directed’’ means

entered by a BEACON subscriber in a

stock in which the routing firm has no

affiliation with or financial interest in

the specialist operation registered in

such stock.

The Commission finds that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the requirements of the Act and the

rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to a national securities

exchange, and, in particular, with the
24936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) (1988 & Supp. v 1993).

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

requirements of Section 6(b).7 The

Commission believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

Section 6(b)(4) requirements that the

rules of an exchange provide for the

equitable allocation of reasonable dues,

fees, and other charges among its

members and issuer and other persons

using its facilities. Moreover, the

Commission believes the proposal is

consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)

requirements that the rules of an

exchange be designed to promote just

and equitable principles of trade, to

prevent fraudulent and manipulative

acts, and, in general, to protect investors

and the public interest. The

Commission also believes the proposal

is consistent with the Section 6(b)(8)

requirements that the rules of the

exchange do not impose any burden on

competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

The Commission believes that the

proposal, which was designed to

encourage routing order flow to the

Exchange, is consistent with the

requirements of the Act because the

proposed rule change is adequately

circumscribed by the limitation on the

aggregate amount of credit that could be

received and does not make executions

off the Exchange prohibitively

expensive. The Commission, however,

will continue to review carefully all

proposed rule changes, especially those

governing fees and credits on fees, for

consistency with, among other things,

the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4),

6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8).

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

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

proposed rule change (SR–BSE–95–04)

is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11447 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35666; File No. SR–CBOE–

95–21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc., Relating to Parents of Member

Organizations

May 3, 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 April 18, 1995, the

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘CBOE’’ 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 self-regulatory organization. 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 CBOE proposes to rescind Rule

3.7, which requires the Exchange’s

Board to approve each country under

whose laws non-U.S. parents of member

organizations are organized. The CBOE

also proposes to move from Rule 3.7 to

Rule 3.5(a) the requirement that parents

of member organizations must furnish

certain information to the Exchange

upon request.

The text of the proposed rule change

is available at the Office of the

Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

CBOE 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 CBOE 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

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to eliminate the requirement

that the Exchange’s Board of Directors

must approve each country under

whose laws non-U.S. parents of member

organizations are organized. The

Exchange believes this requirement is

not necessary for the effective regulation

of its members and their parent

organizations, if any. To the contrary,

elimination of this requirement will

facilitate the Exchange’s review of

membership applications submitted by

member organizations that have nonU.S. parents, as well as its review of

transactions that would result in the

transfer of control of an existing member

organization to a foreign parent.

The Exchange has never adopted any

standards to govern the Board’s

approval of individual countries for

purposes of Rule 3.7, and would find it

problematic to do so. However, since

parents of member organizations are

‘‘associated persons’’ for purposes of

Exchange Rules, as that term is defined

in Rule 1.1(qq), the Exchange has and

will continue to have adequate

regulatory jurisdiction over U.S. and

foreign parents of member

organizations. for example, Rule 3.5

subjects associated persons to the

Constitution and Rules of the Exchange

and the Clearing Corporation, and

requires associated persons to provide

information to the Exchange with

respect to their relationship and

dealings with the member and to permit

the Exchange to examine their relevant

books and records. In addition, as part

of this filing, CBOE proposes to move to

Rule 3.5 the requirement currently

contained in Rule 3.7 obligating persons

who control member organizations to

furnish to the Exchange any information

reasonably related to their securities

business that the Exchange may request.

The Exchange’s authority over parents

of member organizations is further

enlarged by Rule 17.1, which subjects

persons associated with members to the

disciplinary jurisdiction of the

Exchange.

2. Statutory Basis

In light of this broad grant of

regulatory authority over persons who

control member organizations as

described above, and the fact that

members themselves are subject to

comprehensive regulation under the

rules of the Exchange and both federal

and state securities laws, the Exchange

has concluded that the requirement is

consistent with Section 6(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in

general, and furthers the objectives of

Section 6(b)(2) in particular, by

eliminating restrictions on who may be

associated with a member of the

Exchange without diminishing the

protection of investors and the public

interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange believes the proposed

rule change will impose no burden on

competition.