Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices 28191

9See supra note 7.

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2As originally filed, the proposal incorrectly

stated that the effective date of the transfer of

securities was to be completed on or about May 8,

1996. The amendment set forth the correct date as

May 8, 1995. Letter from Leopold S. Rassnick,

Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and

Secretary, PTC, to Jonathan Katz, Secretary,

Commission (May 9, 1995).

3The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries prepared by PTC.

4 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F) (1988).

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) (1988).

6 17 U.S.C. 240.19b–4(e)(3) (1994).

successive five minute delays. The

proposed rule change will provide the

Exchange’s Floor Officials more

flexibility to declare delayed openings

in index options in appropriate

circumstances.

Furthermore, the Commission

believes it is appropriate to amend

Interpretation .03 to Rule 6.2 to state

that a closing rotation for expiring series

of index options ‘‘is not ordinarily’’

employed. Under the current

interpretation, a closing rotation for an

expiring series of index options ‘‘shall

not be employed.’’ The Commission

believes that the proposed amendment

to Interpretation .03 should provide

CBOE Floor Officials the opportunity to

respond to extraordinary circumstances

including, but not limited to, a system

malfunction or a major announcement

in the markets late in the trading day.9

For the same reasons, the Commission

also believes that it is appropriate to

amend Interpretation .03 to Rule 6.2 to

grant two concurring Floor Officials the

authority to deviate from the procedures

for closing rotations if they determine

such deviation is to maintain a fair and

orderly market.

Finally, the Commission believes it is

appropriate to delete from Rule 24.13

the requirement that an Order Book

Official open the nearest expiration

series of index options before opening

the remaining series. The Commission

believes that the proposed rule change,

by permitting the Order Book Official to

exercise his judgment in response to

market conditions or circumstances, is

consistent with the purposes of the Act.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 that the

proposed rule changes (File No. SR–

CBOE–95–04) are approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13072 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35752; file No. SR–PTC–

95–04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Participants Trust Company; Notice of

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of

Proposed Rule Changing Custodians

for the Safekeeping of Physical

Certificates on Deposit With the

Participants Trust Company

May 22, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

May 1, 1995, the Participants Trust

Company (‘‘PTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–PTC–95–04) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which Items have been prepared

primarily by PTC. On May 9, 1995, PTC

filed an amendment to the proposed

rule change.2 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 proposed rule change concerns

PTC’s change in custodians for the

safekeeping of physical certificates on

deposit with PTC.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, PTC

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. PTC has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),

and (C) below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.3

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

On April 18, 1995, PTC entered into

a custody agreement with The

Depository Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’)

providing for the safekeeping by DTC of

physical certificates on deposit with

PTC. On the same date, PTC amended

its custody agreement with Chemical

Bank providing for the termination of

the current custody arrangements with

Chemical Bank. DTC began providing

custodial services upon the completion

of the transfer of the physical

certificates to DTC on May 8, 1995. The

custodial services to be provided by

DTC are substantially similar to the

services previously provided by

Chemical Bank at considerable savings

to PTC and its participants. The change

in custodians was authorized by PTC’s

Board of Directors after completion of a

due diligence review of DTC’s facilities

and procedures. DTC currently has

approximately $8.3 trillion in securities

under its custody and control in

connection with the custodial services it

offers to its own participants.

PTC believes that the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 4 and the rules

and regulations thereunder because it

provides for the safeguarding of

securities and funds in PTC’s custody or

control or for which PTC is responsible.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statements on Burden on Competition

PTC does not believe that the

proposed rule change imposes any

burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

PTC has neither solicited nor received

comments on this proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become

effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 5 and

subparagraph (e)(3) of Rule 19b–4 6

thereunder because the proposed rule

change concerns the administration of

PTC. At any time within sixty days of

the filing of such rule change, the

Commission may summarily abrogate

such rule change if it appears to the

Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.
28192 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Notices

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

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

2Some participants may continue to transmit to

PHILADEP in batch mode; however, PHILADEP

will process interactively with DTC.

3The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries submitted by PHILADEP.

4For a description of DTC’s enhancements to its

ID system to provide for interactive processing

capabilities, refer to Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 34199 (June 10, 1994), 59 FR 31660

[File No. SR–DTC–94–04] (granting accelerated

approval of a proposed rule change).

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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 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

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 PTC. All submissions should

refer to File No. SR–PTC–95–04 and

should be submitted by June 20, 1995.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.7

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13073 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35739; File No. SR–

PHILADEP–95–02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Philadelphia Depository Trust

Company; Notice of Filing and Order

Granting Accelerated Approval of A

Proposed Rule Change to Modify the

Philadelphia Depository Trust

Company’s Interface With The

Depository Trust Company’s

Institutional Delivery System

May 19, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

April 24, 1995, the Philadelphia

Depository Trust Company

(‘‘PHILADEP’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–PHILADEP–95–02)

as described in Items I and II below,

which Items have been prepared

primarily by PHILADEP. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons and to

grant accelerated approval of the

proposed rule change.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

PHILADEP proposes to modify its

interface with The Depository Trust

Company’s (‘‘DTC’’) Institutional

Delivery (‘‘ID’’) system to provide

PHILADEP participants with the ability

to send and receive trade confirmations

and affirmations on an interactive basis

and to provide participants greater

control over certain risks resulting from

incorrectly inputted trade data.2

PHILADEP also proposes to modify the

interface to facilitate the interactive

transmission of certain trade reports

between DTC and PHILADEP.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statements of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

PHILADEP included statements

concerning the purpose of and the 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.

PHILADEP has prepared summaries, as

set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C)

below, of the most significant aspects of

these statements.3

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and the

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

DTC’s ID system allows the parties

involved in an institutional trade (e.g.,

broker-dealer, institution, and custodian

bank) to confirm, affirm, and settle the

trade. The confirmation and affirmation

process helps to reduce the

circumstances where trades will not

settle because a party ‘‘does not know’’

(‘‘DKs’’) the trade. PHILADEP has been

operating an interface with DTC for the

settlement of institutional trades for

several years, and its interface with

DTC’s ID system provides PHILADEP

participants a single channel to

electronically coordinate all post-trade

activity among broker-dealers,

institutions, and custodians from trade

confirmation through final settlement.

DTC recently implemented

enhancements to its ID system to

provide users with the capability of

accomplishing all ID system processing

on an interactive basis throughout a

business day while also providing

participants with the option to continue

transmissions in batch mode.4

The purpose of PHILADEP’s proposed

rule change is to modify its interface

with DTC’s ID system to provide

PHILADEP participants with the ability

to send and receive trade confirmations

and affirmations on an interactive basis

and to provide participants greater

control over certain risks resulting from

incorrectly inputted trade data. When

entering trade data into the ID system,

PHILADEP broker-dealer participants

will have to assign and enter a unique

broker-dealer confirm number

corresponding to each ID trade that the

broker-dealer submits. The ID system

will not accept duplicate broker-dealer

confirm numbers, and it will reject the

trade if (i) the PHILADEP participant

omits the confirmation number or (ii)

the confirmation number matches an

existing ID trade. ID system users that

are participants of both DTC and

PHILADEP will continue to have the

ability to initially submit the trade

details to PHILADEP and to affirm

directly with DTC or with PHILADEP.

PHILADEP participants also will be

required to comply with the modified

procedures for cancelling a trade

previously entered into the ID system.

The ID system does not allow

participants to ‘‘back-out’’ a trade;

therefore, participants must cancel it by

providing the confirmation number of

the existing ID trade being cancelled

and by entering the appropriate reason

code for cancelling the trade. PHILADEP

participants can no longer enter a

numerical value of all nines in the

‘‘Other Charges’’ data field to signify a

trade cancellation.

Finally, PHILADEP also proposes to

modify the interface to facilitate the

interactive transmission of certain trade

reports between DTC and PHILADEP.

PHILADEP will be able to receive

reports of affirmed and unaffirmed

trades as often as needed from DTC and

will provide such reports to its

participants.

PHILADEP believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section 17A of

the Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder because modifying

PHILADEP’s interface with DTC’s ID

system to allow for the interactive

receipt and delivery of trade

confirmations and affirmations and for