2170 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

1 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

NYSE Rule 118, on which Section 46

was patterned.

Under NYSE Rule 118, a DNR

instruction applies only with respect to

cash dividends; i.e., an order with a

DNR instruction would be reduced in

price and increased in size, in the event

of a stock dividend or split, but would

not be reduced in price in the event of

a cash dividend. In addition, under

NYSE Rule 118, a DNI instruction

applies only with respect to stock

dividends, i.e., an order with a DNI

instruction would not be increased in

size, but would be reduced in price, in

the event of a stock dividend. Because

Section 46 was intended to operate in

the same manner as NYSE Rule 118, and

the NASD has determined to amend the

definitions of DNR and DNI to conform

to the definitions in Rule 118.

For customers who understand the

operation of Section 46 to be the same

as NYSE Rule 118, leaving the current

definitions in place could result in

unexpected executions of open orders

for such customers. For example, the

price of an order marked DNR would

not be adjusted under the current

definition in Section 46 even in the

event of a 2 for 1 or similar stock

dividend, while applying NYSE Rule

118 would result in an adjustment. Such

a dividend would halve the quotes for

the security, but the order would remain

at the original price, far out of line with

the market for the security. Thus, the

customer could be faced with a

purchase execution at twice the new

market price for the security, assuming

that the original order was priced

between the old bid and ask quotations.

The apparent rationale behind limiting

the application of the DNR instruction

to cash dividends under NYSE Rule 118

(and the proposed amendment to

Section 46) is that cash dividends are

less likely to result in large quotation

moves that would place an unadjusted

order very far out of line with the

market.

Similarly, consistent with Rule 118, a

DNI instruction should apply only to

order size adjustment in the event of a

stock dividend. Because orders are only

adjusted (increased) in size in a sock

dividend situation, and price is never

adjusted upward as a result of a

distribution, a DNI instruction would

operate to prevent the size of an order

from being increased. This will prevent

a customer from ending up with more

shares than he wanted or intended.

Moreover, because a DNI instruction

only applies to the size of the order, the

price of the order in a dividend

situation will be adjusted downward as

required by the rule.

The NASD believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

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

Act in that the clarification of the

definitions of DNR and DNI will

alleviate confusion, and order

executions that may be harmful to

investors, caused by the differences

between Section 46 and NYSE Rule 118

and, thereby, remove an impediment to

the functioning of the market and

protect investors.

(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.

Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed

Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 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

90 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 self-regulatory

organization 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 file number

SR–NASD–94–71 and should be

submitted by January 27, 1995.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.1

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–369 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Rel. No. IC–20810; File No. 811–3645]

Pilgrim Corporate Utilities Fund:

Notice of Application for Deregistration

December 29, 1994.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of application for

deregistration under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (‘‘Act’’).

APPLICANT: Pilgrim Corporate Utilities

Fund.

RELEVANT ACT SECTION: Section 8(f).

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicant

requests an order declaring that it has

ceased to be an investment company.

FILING DATE: The application was filed

on December 13, 1994.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicant with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on

January 23, 1995, and should be

accompanied by proof of service on

applicant, in the form of an affidavit, or

for lawyers, a certificate of service.

Hearing requests should state the nature

of the writer’s interest, the reason for the

request, and the issues contested.

Persons may request notification of a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20549.

Applicant, 10100 Santa Monica

Boulevard, Los Angeles, California

90067.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bradley W. Paulson, Staff Attorney, at

(202) 942–0147 or Robert A. Robertson,

Branch Chief, at (202) 942–0564

(Division of Investment Management,

Office of Investment Company

Regulation).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices 2171

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application is

available for a fee from the SEC’s Public

Reference Branch.

Applicant’s Representations

1. Applicant is an open-end

management investment company

organized as a corporation under the

laws of California. On January 6, 1983,

applicant registered under the Act and

filed a registration statement to register

its shares. The registration statement

became effective on March 3, 1983, and

applicant’s initial public offering began

on the same day.

2. On March 10, 1994, applicant’s

board of directors unanimously

approved an agreement for the transfer

of assets (the ‘‘Agreement’’) entered into

by applicant and Lepercq-Istel Trust

(the ‘‘Company’’), an open-end

management investment company. The

Agreement provides for the transfer of

assets from applicant to the Company

and for the liquidation of applicant. On

July 27, 1994, shareholders holding

55.92% of applicant’s outstanding

shares approved the Agreement at a

meeting called for that purpose.

3. Pursuant to the Agreement, on July

29, 1994, applicant transferred all of its

assets and liabilities to the Company in

exchange for shares of the Company.

The exchange was based on the relative

net asset value of applicant and the

Company. Thereafter, securityholders of

applicant became securityholders of the

Company. On the date of the transfer,

applicant had an aggregate of 803,193

shares outstanding, and immediately

prior to the exchange, the per share net

asset value of these shares was $6.89.

No brokerage commission was paid in

connection with the reorganization. The

total expenses incurred in connection

with the transfer of assets and

liquidation of applicant, including legal

fees, accounting fees, printing expenses,

and mailing costs for the proxy

solicitation were $35,000. These

expenses were assumed and paid by

Lepercq, de Neuflize & Co., Inc.

4. As of the date of the application,

applicant had no securityholders, assets,

or liabilities. Applicant is not a party to

any litigation or administrative

proceeding.

5. Applicant is not engaged in and

does not propose to engage in any

business activities other than those

necessary for the winding-up of its

affairs.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–371 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice]

Shipping Coordinating Committee;

Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea

and Associated Bodies; Working

Group on Flag State Implementation;

Meeting

The Working Group on Flag State

Implementation (FSI) of the

Subcommittee on Safety of Life at Sea

(SOLAS) will conduct an open meeting

on January 31, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. in

Room 2415 at Coast Guard headquarters,

2100 Second Street, SW, Washington,

DC.

This will be the third meeting of this

Working Group following establishment

of the FSI Subcommittee. The purpose

of the subcommittee is to identify ways

to ensure effective and consistent global

implementation of International

Maritime Organization (IMO)

instruments. At this meeting, the U.S.

position on documents submitted for

consideration at the third session of the

FSI Subcommittee, scheduled for

February 20–24, 1995, will be

discussed.

Specific topics will include: casualty

statistics and investigations, the role of

the human element in maritime safety,

port state control, flag state guidelines,

measures to encourage compliance, and

technical assistance.

Three U.S. papers will be discussed

along with papers submitted as U.S.

comments to intersessional

correspondence groups. Each of these

submissions is described below:

a. Two papers were submitted in

response to questionnaires developed by

IMO. The first provides general

information about the Coast Guard

Marine Safety program, including the

structure, number of offices, and

number of inspectors. The second

provides information on the number

and level of training of Port State

Control Officers.

b. A paper was submitted

recommending the development of a

consolidated list of organizations

authorized to issue International Safety

Management (ISM) Code Certificates on

behalf of administrations. The paper

lists those organizations which the U.S.

has authorized to perform these surveys

and issue certificates for voluntary

compliance.

c. The U.S. coordinated a

correspondence group which dealt with

amalgamating existing international port

state control guidance into a single

document, and expanding this guidance

as necessary. The correspondence group

developed a draft document, and an

additional document proposing that

each administration provide a single

point of contract for port state control

matters.

d. A paper was submitted providing

comments to a correspondence group

developing guidelines for the

implementation of the International

Safety Management (ISM) Code.

e. A paper was submitted providing

comments to the correspondence group

developing specifications for

organizations which act on behalf of a

flag administration. These guidelines

establish minimum requirements for the

delegated organization to meet with

respect to personnel, capabilities, and

training.

Members of the public may request

any of the documents relating to FSI 3.

Members of the public may attend this

meeting up to the seating capacity of the

room.

For further information on this FSI

Working Group meeting, contact

Commander J.M. Holmes at (202) 267–

1044, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters

(G–MVI–1), 2100 Second Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20593–0001.

Dated: December 20, 1994.

Marie Murray,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating

Committee.

[FR Doc. 95–282 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. 49844]

RIN 2105–AC19

Statement of United States

International Air Transportation Policy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments on a

report prepared for the Office of the

Secretary titled ‘‘A Study of

International Airline Code Sharing’’.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation has issued a study

prepared by Gellman Research

Associates on international airline code

sharing. This topic is relevant to issues

raised in the Department’s international