Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10135

Ayanian, Attorney, OMS, Division, Commission, on

Monday, February 13, 1995.

2 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1993).

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35235

(January 18, 1995), 60 FR 4936 (January 25, 1995).

4 Generally, the rules of the options exchanges

provide that equity options may be traded up until

the close of business on the last business day before

expiration, which is generally the third Friday of

the expiration month (‘‘Expiration Friday’’). See,

e.g. CBOE Rule 11.1 and Phlx Rule 1042.

5For customers, an exercise instruction is a

notice delivered to a member to exercise an option.

For a clearing member of The Options Clearing

Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) or a market maker or floor

broker on a national options exchange, an exercise

instruction is a notice to OCC to exercise an option

that would not be automatically exercised pursuant

to OCC’s exercise-by-exception procedure (‘‘OCC

Rule 805’’), or not to exercise an option that would

otherwise be automatically exercised pursuant to

OCC Rule 805. See infra note 9. The OCC has

separate rules regarding the cut-off time by which

exercise notices must be delivered to OCC by OCC

clearing members. The proposed rule change does

not in any way affect OCC rules.

6 In most cases, exercise instructions are

electronically transmitted to OCC clearing members

through the Clearing Management and Control

System (‘‘C/MACS’’).

Pursuant to the proposed

interpretations, once the system

malfunction has been corrected and the

market quotes have been updated, either

the senior person then in charge of the

Exchange’s Control Room, or the Order

Book Official, or the RAES Supervisor

may re-start RAES.

Conclusion

CBOE believes that the proposed rule

change is consistent with and further

the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act, in that the rules change is designed

to perfect the mechanisms of a free and

open market and to protect investors

and the public interest by enabling the

Control Room to turn off RAES to

prevent trades based on inaccurate

market quotes.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

CBOE does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants or Others

No written comments were solicited

or received with respect to the proposed

rule change.

III. 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

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of CBOE. All submissions should

refer to file number SR–CBOE–95–06

and should be submitted by March 16,

1995.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.2

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4401 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35389; File No. SR–NASD–

94–78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Granting Accelerated Approval of a

Proposed Rule Change by the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.,

Relating to Exercise Cut-Off

Procedures for Expiring Equity

Options Contracts

February 16, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

on December 23, 1994, the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(‘‘NASD’’) submitted to the securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change

relating to the exercise procedures for

expiring equity options contracts. The

proposal was published for comment in

the Federal Register on January 25,

1995.3 No comments were received on

the proposed rule change. This order

approves the proposed rule change.

Currently, with regard to expiring

standardized equity options, Section 63

of the NASD’s Uniform Practice Code

(‘‘Practice Code’’) provides that NASD

members and their customers are

required to indicate their exercise

decisions to clearing members no later

than 5:30 p.m. (E.S.T.) on the business

day immediately prior to the expiration

date of the options (‘‘Exercise Cut-Off

Time’’).4 This is the latest time by which

an exercise instruction 5 may be: (1)

Prepared by a clearing member for

positions in its proprietary trading

account; (2) accepted by a clearing

member from a non-clearing member; or

(3) accepted by a member from any

customer.6

The only exceptions to the Exercise

Cut-Off Times contained in Section 63

of the Practice Code are: (1) To remedy

mistakes or errors made in good faith;

(2) to take appropriate action as the

result of a failure to reconcile an

unmatched option transaction; (3)

where exceptional circumstances

relating to a customer’s or member’s

ability to communicate exercise

instructions to a member (or a member’s

ability to receive such exercise

instructions) prior to the Exercise CutOff Time warrant such action; and (4)

with respect to options contracts in an

account maintained for another member

in which only positions of customers of

such other member are carried.

Members are required to prepare a

memorandum of every exercise

instruction received from a customer

stating the time when such instruction

was received. In addition, in the event

a member receives and acts on an

exercise instruction pursuant to one of

the exceptions noted above, the member

must prepare a memorandum setting

forth the circumstances giving rise to

the exception. If the member is relying

on either the first or the third exception

described above, the member must

promptly file a copy of the

memorandum with the NASD.

Thus, it is presently a violation of

Section 63 of the Practice Code for

clearing members to accept exercise

instructions after the Exercise Cut-Off

Time, except in reliance on one of the

exceptions noted above. Because
10136 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

7See, e.g., In re Farmers Group Stock Options

Litigation, Master File No. 88–4994 (E.D.Pa).

8Because OCC’s rules are not affected by this rule

proposal, the reporting of final exercise decisions as

contemplated by the revised rule does not serve to

substitute as the effective exercise notice to OCC for

the exercise or nonexercise of expiring options.

9OCC Rule 805 provides for the automatic

exercise of in-the-money options at expiration

without the submission of an exercise notice to

OCC if the price of the security underlying the

option is at or above a certain price for calls or at

or below a certain price for puts; and the nonexercise of an option at expiration if the price of

the security underlying the option does not satisfy

such price levels. See OCC Rule 805.

10Even through this may be accomplished by

submitting exercise decisions directly to the

relevant options exchange, the more likely manner

of accomplishing this will be to submit the exercise

decisions to the options exchanges through C/

MACS. The OCC has represented that all necessary

systems modifications have been made and fully

tested in order for the proposed exercise procedures

described herein to be implemented for the next

Expiration Friday on February 17, 1995. See Letter

from James Young, First Vice President and General

Counsel, OCC, to Brad Ritter, Senior Counsel, Office

of Market Supervision, Division of Market

Regulation, Commission, dated February 13, 1995.

11This could happen when an underlying

security is not traded on its primary market on the

trading day immediately preceding an expiration

date and, as a result, OCC determines not to fix a

closing price for that security. See OCC Rule 805(l).

12See supra note 9.

13Specifically, in order to conform the NASD’s

proposed rule with the rules of the options

exchanges, the NASD proposes to delete the

exemption that applies to ‘‘option contracts carried

in an account maintained for another member in

which only positions of customers of such other

member are carried.’’

exercise instructions are submitted to

the clearing members, without having

the audit trail pass directly through the

NASD or the particular options

exchange(s) trading the expiring option,

it is difficult for the NASD to surveil for

violations of Section 63. In fact, there

have been some situations where

members have either delayed making

exercise decisions until after the

Exercise Cut-Off Time in anticipation of

the release of significant news

concerning a particular underlying

company or, having made exercise

decisions prior to the Exercise Cut-Off

Time, changed these decisions based

upon such news. In one notable

situation, certain firms that anticipated

the release of material news regarding a

particular company allegedly delayed

making their exercise decisions until

after the Exercise Cut-Off Time, causing

firms who claimed to have been

disadvantaged by such conduct to

commence a series of highly publicized

arbitration proceedings and lawsuits.7

Accordingly, in order to enable the

options exchanges and the NASD to

determine whether options holders have

made their final exercise decisions no

later than the prescribed Exercise CutOff Time and not on the basis of market

developments occurring after the

Exercise Cut-Off Time, the NASD

proposes to amend Section 63 of the

Practice Code to provide for an exercise

advice procedure. Specifically, the

proposed rule change will alter the

existing exercise instruction procedures

by requiring the final exercise decisions

also be submitted to the relevant options

exchange(s) trading a particular equity

option. The clearing members will still

be responsible for delivering exercise

notices to OCC, however, the proposed

rule change will allow the NASD, in

conjunction with the options exchanges,

to accurately document when each

exercise instruction was received by a

member or clearing member or

delivered by a clearing member to

OCC.8 The Exercise Cut-Off Time will

still be 5:30 p.m. (E.S.T.) on the

business day immediately prior to the

expiration date.

In particular, under the proposal,

there will be two means of exercising an

expiring equity option: (1) Take no

action and allow exercise

determinations to be made in

accordance with OCC Rule 805; 9 or (2)

members may submit a contrary

exercise advice (i.e., a notice

committing an option holder either to

exercise an option that would not

otherwise be exercised automatically

pursuant to OCC Rule 805, or not to

exercise an option that otherwise would

be exercised automatically pursuant to

OCC Rule 805) (‘‘Contrary Exercise

Advice’’). A Contrary Exercise Advice

will be submitted by NASD members:

(1) to a place designated for that

purpose by any national options

exchange of which they are a member

and where the particular equity option

is listed; (2) to a place designated for

that purpose by any national options

exchange that lists and trades that

equity option via a member of such

exchange if the member is not a member

of such exchange; (3) to any national

options exchange of which they are a

member and where the equity option is

listed via OCC in a form prescribed by

OCC; 10 or (4) to any national options

exchange where the equity option is

listed via OCC in a form prescribed by

OCC, provided the member is a member

of OCC. In those instances where OCC

Rule 805 has been waived by OCC,11 the

proposal provides that a Contrary

Exercise Advice must be submitted

prior to the Exercise Cut-Off Time by

members wanting to exercise an option

that would not have been automatically

exercised, or not to exercise an option

that would have been automatically

exercised, had OCC’s exercise-byexception procedure been in effect.12

The applicable underlying security

price in such instances will be as

described in OCC Rule 805(1), which is

normally the last sale price in the

primary market for the underlying

security.

The proposal also requires that

members maintaining proprietary or

public customer positions in expiring

options take necessary steps to ensure

that final exercise decisions are properly

indicated to the relevant national

options exchange with respect to such

positions. In addition, the proposal

provides that members who have

accepted the responsibility of indicating

final exercise decisions on behalf of

another member also shall take

necessary steps to ensure that such

decisions are properly indicated to the

relevant national options exchange. In

this regard, the proposal also provides

that members may establish an internal

processing cut-off time prior to 5:30

p.m. (E.S.T.), at which time the member

will no longer accept final exercise

decisions from its customers in expiring

options.

With certain minor modifications,13

the proposal maintains the current

exceptions to Section 63 of the Practice

Code. The proposal, however, does add

language to Section 63(b)(3) to expressly

state that the burden of establishing an

exception to the Exercise Cut-Off Time

for a proprietary or customer account of

a member rests solely on the member

seeking to rely on such exception.

In the event a member does not timely

submit a Contrary Exercise Advice

pursuant to an exception, the

responsible member must prepare a

written memorandum describing the

circumstances surrounding the late

submission of the Contrary Exercise

Advice and stating the time when such

final exercise decision was made or, in

the case of customer, was received. The

member must also file a copy of the

memorandum with the market

surveillance department of the national

options exchange trading the option, if

it is a member of such exchange, or the

NASD’s Market Surveillance

Department, if it is not a member of

such exchange, no later than 12:00 p.m.

(E.S.T.) on the business day following

that expiration.

Furthermore, in order to highlight the

seriousness of violating Section 63 of

the Practice Code, the proposed rule

language expressly states that

submitting or preparing an exercise

instruction after the Exercise Cut-Off

Time in any expiring equity option on

the basis of material information
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10137

14 ISG was formed on July 14, 1983 to, among

other things, coordinate more effectively

surveillance information sharing arrangements in

the stock and options markets. See Intermarket

Surveillance Sharing Group Agreement, July 14,

1983. The members of ISG are the American Stock

Exchange, Inc., the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the Chicago

Stock Exchange, Inc., the Cincinnati Stock

Exchange, Inc., the NASD, the New York Stock

Exchange, Inc., the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.,

and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

15See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.

34806 (October 7, 1994), 59 FR 52339 (October 17,

1994) (order approving File No. SR–PHLX–93–37);

34807 (October 7, 1994), 59 FR 52329 (October 17,

1994) (order approving File No. SR–CBOE–94–06);

34808 (October 7, 1994), 59 FR 52324 (October 17,

1994) (order approving File No. SR–AMEX–94–01);

34810 (October 7, 1994), 59 FR 52334 (October 17,

1994) (order approving File No. SR–PSE–94–12);

and 34818 (October 11, 1994), 59 FR 52331 (October

17, 1994) (order approving File No. SR–NYSE–94–

12).

16 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(6) (1982).

17See supra note 7.

18The Commission believes that the Exercise CutOff Time serves an important investor protection

function. Specifically, the Exercise Cut-Off Time

protects holders of short positions in equity options

from unanticipated events occurring after the close

of the market. As the Commission has previously

stated, if expiring equity options were allowed to

be exercised after the Exercise Cut-Off Time for

reasons other than the exceptions set forth above,

the Commission believes that options writers could

be unfairly disadvantaged with respect to options

holders by not having the same opportunity to react

to such unanticipated events. See Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 19589 (March 10, 1983),

48 FR 11196 (March 16, 1983).

19See supra note 5.

20The Commission notes that the NASD has

distributed a notice to member organizations

describing the new procedures set forth above and

notifying member organizations as to the scheduled

implementation of those procedures in time for the

next Expiration Friday on February 17, 1995. See

NASD Notice to Members 94–102, ‘‘New Exercise

Advice Procedures for Expiring Equity Options,’’

dated December 23, 1994.

21For example, the NASD may wish to consider

adopting additional penalties in those situations

where a member organization is unable to establish

the existence of one of the exceptions to Section 63

of the Practice Code for a particular trade or trades.

22For example, the NASD may want to define

expressly in the rule the circumstances that qualify

for a good faith exception.

23See supra note 15.

24See supra note 10.

25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). (1982).

released after the Exercise Cut-Off Time

is activity inconsistent with just and

equitable principles of trade. The

proposal also states that the

requirements specified in Section 63(b)

will not apply to standardized foreign

currency options or standardized index

option products.

The NASD represents that the

proposed rule change reflects a

coordinated effort among all the options

exchanges, the NASD, and OCC. In

particular, the NASD represents that the

proposed exercise advice procedure has

been reviewed and endorsed by the

Intermarket Surveillance Group

(‘‘ISG’’),14 which has approved the

issuance by the options exchanges of a

circular explaining the operation of the

new exercise cut-off provisions. The

NASD notes that the Commission has

already approved similar rule proposals

from each of the national options

exchanges.15

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, the

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

Act.16 Specifically, the Commission

believes that the NASD’s proposal is

designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, to foster cooperation and

coordination with persons engaged in

facilitating transactions in securities,

and to protect investors and the public

interest.

Although, as noted by the NASD, all

options exchanges currently have a

uniform 5:30 p.m. (E.S.T.) Exercise CutOff Time on Expiration Fridays for

expiring equity options, OCC’s rules

permit OCC to accept exercise notices

for expiring equity options from clearing

firms until 12:00 a.m. (E.S.T.) on the

expiration date (i.e., the Saturday after

an Expiration Friday). This additional

time within which to receive exercise

notices from clearing members was

provided to accommodate corrections of

mistakes made in good faith, trade

reconciliations, and certain exceptional

circumstances that affected a customer’s

ability to inform its brokerage firm or

affected a firm’s ability to receive final

exercise decisions before the Exercise

Cut-Off Time. Nevertheless, in order to

prevent situations such as the one cited

by the NASD,17 the Commission

believes that it is appropriate for the

Exchange to make it clear in its rules

that the submission of a Contrary

Exercise Advice on the basis of material

information released after the Exercise

Cut-Off Time will be activity deemed

inconsistent with just and equitable

principles of trade.18

The Commission believes that the

proposed exercise procedures should

enhance the NASD’s ability to surveil

for violations of Section 63 of the

Practice Code by providing an enhanced

audit trail for identifying late exercises.

Specifically, every time an exercise

decision is made contrary to OCC Rule

805, a Contrary Exercise Advice must be

filed as discussed above, in addition to

submitting an exercise instruction to a

clearing member as is currently required

by either the rules of the options

exchanges or by exchange clearing

members.19 Similarly, the proposal

requires that documentation must be

prepared and submitted either to the

proper options exchange or to the NASD

whenever a late exercise decision is

made in reliance on one of the

exceptions to Section 63, with the

burden of establishing the existence of

the exception on the party submitting

the Contrary Exercise Advice. The

proposed rule change, therefore, should

facilitate the Exchange’s ability to

monitor and enforce compliance with

Section 63. Accordingly, because the

proposed rule change significantly

bolsters the NASD’s existing procedures

regarding the exercise of expiring equity

options and helps to ensure compliance

with their rules, the Commission

believes that the proposal is consistent

with the Act.20

Even though the proposed rule change

significantly improves the NASD’s audit

trail with respect to late exercises, the

Commission believes that the NASD

should continue to examine ways of

ensuring compliance with the Exercise

Cut-Off Time and the other

requirements of Section 63.21

Furthermore, the Commission also

encourages the NASD to review the

permitted exceptions to Section 63 and

consider ways of establishing

parameters as to the extent of the

exceptions.22

The Commission finds good cause for

approving the proposed rule change

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice of filing thereof

in the Federal Register. Specifically, the

Commission notes that the proposed

rule change is substantively similar to

proposals submitted by the national

options exchanges and recently

approved by the Commission.23

Additionally, the proposals by the other

options exchanges are being

implemented in time for the next

Expiration Friday on February 17,

1995.24 Accelerated approval of the

NASD’s proposal is therefore necessary

in order to ensure that the options

exchanges and their members as well as

the NASD and its members are

operating under uniform procedures for

exercising expiring equity options.

Finally, the proposal was noticed for the

full 21-day comment period without any

comments being received by the

Commission. Accordingly, the

Commission believes that it is

consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the

Act to approve the proposed rule change

on an accelerated basis.

It Is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,25 that the
10138 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

26 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

NASD–94–78) is hereby approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulati0n, pursuant to delegated

authority.26

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–4400 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

[Public Notice 2168]

Policy on Munitions Export Licenses to

Ecuador and Peru

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Public notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that all

licenses and other approvals to export

or otherwise transfer defense articles or

defense services to Ecuador or Peru are

suspended until further notice pursuant

to Sections 38, and 42 of the Arms

Export Control Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Kavanagh, Office of Export

Control Policy, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs, Department of State

(202–647–4231).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective

immediately, it is the policy of the U.S.

Government to deny all requests for

licenses and other approvals to export

or otherwise transfer defense articles

and defense services to Ecuador or Peru.

In addition, the Department of State has

suspended all previously issued

licenses and approvals authorizing the

export or other transfer of defense

articles or defense services to Ecuador

or Peru. This action has been taken in

response to the continuing conflict on

the border between Ecuador and Peru.

The licenses and approvals subject to

this policy include manufacturing

licenses, technical assistance

agreements, technical data, and

commercial military exports of any kind

involving Ecuador or Peru and which

are subject to controls under the Arms

Export Control Act. This policy also

prohibits the use in connection with

Ecuador or Peru of any exemptions from

licensing or other approval

requirements included in the

International Traffic in Arms

Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120–

130), with the exception of those

exemptions specified in Section

126.1(a), unless a specific written

exception is provided by the Office of

Defense Trade Controls.

Exceptions to this policy will be made

for certain U.S. Munitions List Category

XIII(B)(1) items from banking and

financial institutions.

This action has been taken pursuant

to Sections 38 and 42 of the Arms

Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. §§ 2778,

2791) and § 126.7 of the ITAR in

furtherance of the foreign policy of the

United States.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

Eric D. Newsom,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of

Political-Military Affairs, Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 95–4346 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD 95–017]

In the Matter of Shanghai Hai Xing

Shipping Company: Proposed

Assessment of Class II Administrative

Penalty

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed penalty;

opportunity to comment.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard gives notice

of and provides an opportunity to

comment on the proposed assessment of

a Class II administrative penalty to

Shanghai Hai Xing Shipping Company

for violations of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The

alleged violations involved the spill of

approximately 3,000 gallons of

intermediate fuel oil from the M/V AN

PING 6 on January 10, 1994 into the

Columbia River in the vicinity of

Longview, Washington. Interested

persons may submit written comments

on the proceeding, including comments

on the amount of the proposed penalty,

or written notice of intent to present

evidence at any hearing held in the

proceeding. If no hearing is held, an

interested person may, within 30 days

after insurance of an order, petition to

set aside the order and to provide a

hearing.

DATES: Comments or notice of intent to

present evidence at a hearing must be

received not later than March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for

a hearing may be mailed to the Hearing

Docket Clerk, Office of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge,

Commandant (G–CJ), U.S. Coast Guard,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 6302 at the same address between

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. Filings

should reference docket number 95–

0001–CIV. The administrative record for

this proceeding is available for

inspection at the same address and

times.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. George J. Jordan, Judicial

Administrator, Office of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge,

Commandant (G–CJ), U.S. Coast Guard,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, telephone (202) 267–

2940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of

this proceeding is given pursuant to the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The

proceeding is initiated under Section

311(b) of the FWPCA (33 U.S.C.

1321(b)).

This proceeding results from an

alleged spill of approximately 3,000

gallons of intermediate fuel oil from the

M/V AN PING 6 on January 10, 1994

into the Columbia River in the vicinity

of Longview, Washington. Under the

Coast Guard’s Class II Civil Penalty

regulations in 33 CFR Part 20, the Coast

Guard publishes notice of the proposed

issuance of an order assessing a Class II

penalty in the Federal Register (33 CFR

§ 20.402). A person who wishes to be an

interested person must file written

comment on the proceeding or written

notice of intent to present evidence at

any hearing held in the proceeding with

the Hearing Docket Clerk not later than

March 27, 1995 (33 CFR § 20.404).

Interested persons will be given notice

of any hearing, a reasonable opportunity

to be heard and to present evidence

during any hearing, and notice of the

decision. Although a hearing is not yet

scheduled, the Coast Guard has asked

that any hearing be held in Seattle, WA.

If no hearing is held, an interested

person may, within 30 days after

issuance of an order, petition the

Commandant of the Coast Guard to set

aside the order and to provide a hearing

(33 CFR § 20.1102).

The following additional information

is provided:

Respondent: Shanghai Hai Xing

Shipping Co., 20 Canton Rd.,

Shanghai, China 200002; M/V AN

PING 6 (L8301929)

Complaint Filed: February 2, 1995;

Seattle, WA

Docket Number: 95–0001–CIV

Amount of Proposed Penalty: $120,000

Charges:

Count 1—Improper Discharge of Oil