15318 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices

5Rule 904C(c) relates to position limits for stock

index industry groups.

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

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

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35176

(December 29, 1994), 60 FR 2417.

3Letter from Dr. Keith B. Jarrett, President,

Thomson Trading Services, Inc., to Jonathan G.

Katz, Secretary, Commission (January 30, 1995).

4 17 CFR 240.15c6–1 (1994).

5Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 33023

(October 6, 1993), 58 FR 52891 (order adopting Rule

15c6–1) and 34952 (November 9, 1994), 59 FR

59137 (changing effective date from June 1, 1995,

to June 7, 1995).

long-term, reduced value put and call

options based on one-tenth (1/10th) the

Index’s full value.

In either event, the interval between

expiration months for either a full value

or reduced value long-term option will

not be less than six months. The trading

of any long-term options would be

subject to the same rules which govern

the trading of all the Exchange’s index

options, including sales practice rules,

margin requirements and floor trading

procedures, and all options will have

European style exercise. Position limits

on reduced value long-term REIT Index

options will be equivalent to the

position limits for regular (full value)

Index options and would be aggregated

with such options (for example, if the

position limit for the full value options

is 10,500 contracts on the same side of

the market, then the position limit for

the reduced value options will be

105,000 contracts on the same side of

the market).

The exercise settlement value for all

of the Index’s expiring options will be

calculated based upon the primary

exchange regular way opening sale

prices for the component stocks. In the

case of securities traded through the

Nasdaq system, the first reported regular

way sale price will be used. If any

component stock does not open for

trading on its primary market on the last

trading day before expiration, then the

prior day’s last sale price will be used

in the calculation.

6. Exchange Rules Applicable to Stock

Index Options

Amex Rules 900C through 980C will

apply to the trading of option contracts

based on the Index. These rules address

surveillance, exercise prices, and

position limits. Surveillance procedures

currently used to monitor trading in

each of the Exchange’s other index

options will also be used to monitor

trading in options on the REIT Index.

The Exchange has designated the Index

a Stock Index Option under Rule

901C(a) and a Stock Index Industry

Group under Rule 900C(b)(1). With

respect to Rule 903C(b), the Exchange

proposes to list near-the-money (i.e.,

within ten points above or below the

current index value) option series on the

Index at 21⁄2 point strike (exercise) price

intervals when the value of the Index is

below 200 points. In addition, the

Exchange expects that the review

required by Rule 904C(c) 5 will result in

a position limit of 10,500 contracts with

respect to options on the Index.

7. Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b) of the Act in general and

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

of the Act in particular in that it is

designated 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

regulating, clearing, settling, processing

information with respect to, and

facilitating transactions in, securities,

and in general to protect investors and

the public interest, and to remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Amex believes that the proposed

rule change will not impose any burden

on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments on the proposed

rule change were neither solicited nor

received.

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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submissions, 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 and 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. Copies of such filing

will also be available for inspection and

copying at the principal office of the

above mentioned self-regulatory

organization. All submissions should

refer to File No. SR–Amex-95–06 and

should be submitted by April 13, 1995.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.6

[FR Doc. 95–7136 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35503; File No. SR–Phlx–

94–55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Order Approving Proposed Rule

Change Relating to Implementation of

a Three-Day Settlement Standard

March 16, 1995.

On November 14, 1994, the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.,

(‘‘Phlx’’) filed a proposed rule change

(File No. SR–Phlx–94–55) with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to Section

19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposal

was published in the Federal Register

on January 9, 1995 to solicit comments

from interested persons.2 The

Commission received one comment

letter.3 As discussed below, this order

approves the proposed rule change.

I. Description

In October 1993, the Commission

adopted Rule 15c6–1 under the Act 4

which establishes three business days

after the trade date (‘‘T+3’’), instead of

five business days (‘‘T+5’’), as the

standard settlement cycle for most

securities transactions. The rule will

become effective June 7, 1995.5 Several

of the Phlx’s rules are interrelated with

the T+5 settlement time frame. The
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices 15319

6The transition from five day settlement to three

day settlement will occur over a four day period.

Friday, June 2, will be the last trading day with five

business day settlement. Monday, June 5, and

Tuesday, June 6, will be trading days with four

business day settlement. Wednesday, June 7, will be

the first trading day with three business day

settlement. As a result, trades from June 2 and June

5 will settle on Friday, June 9. Trades from June 6

and June 7 will settle on Monday, June 12.

7Supra note 3.

8 15 U.S.C. 78f (1988).

9The Commission release adopting Rule 15c6–1

stated that ‘‘the value of securities positions can

change suddenly causing a market participant to

default on unsettled positions. Because the markets

are interwoven through common members, default

at one clearing corporation or by a major market

participant or end-user could trigger additional

failures resulting in risk to the national clearance

and settlement system.’’ Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 33023 (October 6, 1993), 58 FR 52891.

10Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35332

(February 3, 1995), 60 FR 8102 (notice of filing of

proposed rule change)

purpose of the proposed rule change is

to amend Phlx’s rules to be consistent

with a T+3 settlement standard for

securities transactions.

Rule 113(b), 114(b), and 115(b)

specify the delivery date for regular way

transactions in stocks, bonds, and

convertible bonds, respectively. The

time frames contained in each rule is

being shortened to reflect a T+3

settlement environment. Similarly,

Rules 113(c), 114(c), and 115(b) are

being amended to provide that a seller’s

option cannot require delivery in less

than four days. Rule 114(b) also is being

amended to provide that bonds sold for

delayed delivery must be delivered on

T+5. Under the amendments to rule 117

(a) and (b), a seller’s notice of next day

delivery of securities sold pursuant to a

seller’s option or regular way delayed

delivery may not be given until the third

day following the date of the contract.

As amended, Rule 291 requires,

unless otherwise agreed, securities

loaned to be delivered on the third

business day following the day of the

loan, As amended, Rule 294 requires the

return of securities loaned on the third

full business day following the date the

notice for the return is given.

Under Rule 362, the contract price of

bonds dealt in ‘‘and interest’’ and made

regular way delayed delivery will

include interest computed on up to but

not including T+3. As amended, Rule

371 (a) and (b) provides that there will

be a cash adjustment for coupons paid

during the pendency of delayed delivery

contracts and seller’s option contracts in

bonds dealt in ‘‘and interest’’ made

prior to the third business day

preceding the interest payment date and

delivered on or after the interest

payment date.

Rule 431 is being amended to require

transactions in stock to be ex-dividend

or ex-rights on the second business day

preceding the record date. With regard

to a record date on other than a business

day, the transaction will be ex-dividend

or ex-right on the third preceding

business day. Under Rule 432, the exwarrant period will begin on the second

business day preceding the date of

expiration of warrants. When warrant

expiration occurs on a day other than a

business day, the ex-warrant period will

begin on the third business day

preceding expiration date.

Rule 823 is being amended to require

all transactions effected on Phlx to be

settled pursuant to the three day

delivery plan which will require regular

way transactions to settle on the third

business day after the transaction. Rule

825(b) is being amended to state that the

ex-dividend period for transactions in

stock for which there exists a transfer

facility in Philadelphia begins on the

second business day preceding the

record date. In the event the record date

is not a business day, the ex-dividend

date will be the third preceding

business day. Under Rule 825(c), regular

way transactions for stocks with transfer

facilities only outside Philadelphia will

be ex-dividend on the second business

day preceding the equivalent

Philadelphia record date.

The Phlx has requested that the

proposed rule change become effective

on the same date as Rule 15c6–1. Rule

15c6–1 will become effective on June 7,

1995.6

II. Written Comment

The Commission received one

comment letter from Thomson Trading

Services, Inc. (‘‘Thomson’’) suggesting

that additional rule changes may be

necessary to implement T+3

settlement.7 Thomson believes that the

Phlx should amend Rule 274(b) which

requires the use of the facilities of a

registered securities depository for

confirmation and acknowledgement of

all payment on delivery transactions in

depository-eligible securities when the

member organization, its agent, the

customer, and its agent are participants

in a securities depository.

III. Discussion

The Commission believes the

proposal is consistent with the

requirements of Section 6 of the Act.8

Specifically, Section 6(b)(5) states that

the rules of the exchange must be

designed to foster cooperation and

coordination with persons engaged in

regulating, clearing, settling, and

processing information. The Phlx rules

and other self-regulatory organizations’

rules provide a standard time frame for

settlement of securities transactions. On

June 7, 1995, the new settlement cycle

of T+3 will be established as mandated

by the Commission’s Rule 15c6–1. As a

result, the Phlx’s current rules providing

for a T+5 settlement cycle will be

inconsistent with the Commission’s

rule. This proposal will amend the

Phlx’s rules to harmonize them with the

Commission’s Rule 15c6–1 and a T+3

settlement cycle.

In addition, the Commission believes

that the proposed rule change is

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act in that it protects investors and the

public interest by reducing risks to

clearing corporations, their members,

and public investors which are inherent

in settling securities transactions. The

reduction of the time period for

settlement of most securities

transactions will correspondingly

decrease the number of unsettled trades

in the clearance and settlement system

at any given time. Thus fewer unsettled

trades will be subject to credit and

market risk, and there will be less time

between trade execution and settlement

for the value of those trades to

deteriorate.9

While the Thomson letter supports

the Phlx’s efforts to shorten the

settlement cycle for securities

transactions, Thomson believes that the

Phlx should amend Rule 274(b), which

requires the use of the facilities of a

registered securities depository for the

confirmation and acknowledgement of

all payment on delivery transactions in

depository-eligible securities when the

member organization, its agent, the

customer, and its agent are participants

in a securities depository. The

Commission believes that the issue

raised by the Thomson letter need not

be resolved prior to the approval of the

proposed rule change. Discussions

regarding Thomson’s concerns are

underway among the Commission,

Thomson, and DTC. DTC has submitted

a rule filing that will establish a linkage

between DTC and vendors such as

Thomson.10 The Commission intends to

consider whether a self-regulatory

organization rule should continue to

preclude use of private vendor systems

for confirmation/affirmation services in

DVP/RVP trades. However, if the Phlx’s

proposed rule change being approved by

this order is not approved prior to the

June 7, 1995, effective date of Rule

15c6–1, the Phlx rules will conflict with

Commission Rule 15c6–1.

The Thomson letter suggests that

approval of the proposed rule change

without amendments to Rule 274(b)

raises competitive concerns. Under the

Act, the Commission’s responsibility is
15320 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices

11 15 U.S.C. 78f (1988).

12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).

13 17 CFR 200.30(a)(12) (1994).

to balance the perceived anticompetitive

effects of a regulatory policy or decision

against the purpose of the Act that

would be advanced by the policy or

decisions and the costs associated

therewith. The Commission notes that

any anticompetitive effects pointed to

by Thomson are not caused by the

proposed rule change being approved by

this order but rather by an existing Phlx

rule. The Commission is reviewing

Thomson’s claim but does not believe

that approval of this proposal will itself

create any burdens on competition.

Moreover, as discussed above, the rule

advances fundamental purposes under

the Act, namely the efficient clearance

and settlement of securities.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the

Commission finds that Phlx’s proposal

is consistent with Section 6 of the Act.11

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,12 that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–

Phlx–94–55) be and hereby is approved

and will become effective June 7, 1995.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.13

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7137 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2181]

United States International

Telecommunications Advisory

Committee Radiocommunication

Sector Joint Ad Hoc Working Party 7B

and 9D; Meeting Notice

The Department of State announces

that the United States International

Telecommunications Advisory

Committee (ITAC),

Radiocommunication Sector Joint Ad

Hoc Working Party 7B and 9D will meet

on 13 April 1995 at 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.,

in the conference room at the facilities

of Stanford Telecom, Inc., 7501 Forbes

Blvd., Suite 105, Seabrook, MD.

Joint Ad Hoc Working Party 7B and

9D has been established to develop

recommendations that lead to a stable,

long term sharing environment for the

fixed service and the space research,

space operation and Earth explorationsatellite services in the 2025–2110 MHz

and 2200–2290 MHz bands; and also to

develop a recommendation on the

e.i.r.p. spectral density of fixed service

emissions in the 25.25–27.5 GHz band

that are directed towards the

geostationary orbit.

This April Meeting will review the

results of the Joint Ad Hoc WP 7B and

9D meeting, 3–4 November 1994 and

begin preparations for the 21–24 July

international meeting.

Members of the General Public may

attend the meetings and join in the

discussions, subject to the instructions

of the Chairman, John E. Miller. Those

persons who wish to attend, please call

(301) 464–8900 or fax (301) 262–2642

and leave your name, address, phone

and fax numbers.

Dated: March 13, 1995.

Warren G. Richards,

Chairman, U.S. ITAC for ITURadiocommunication Sector.

[FR Doc. 95–7163 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–45–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Intent To Prepare Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement; Cal

Black Memorial Airport, Halls

Crossing, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The Northwest Mountain

Region of the FAA announces: its intent

to prepare Draft and Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statements

(SEIS) for further study of potential

noise impacts associated with operation

of Cal Black Memorial Airport at Halls

Crossing, Utah and that the Federal SEIS

scoping process will consist of a time

period for interested agencies and

persons to submit written comments as

to their concerns regarding potential

noise impacts upon areas surrounding

the airport and how those impacts could

be addressed in the Draft SEIS.

DATES: In order to be considered,

written comments must be received by

Mr. Dennis G. Ossenkop, Federal

Aviation Administration, Airports

Division, 1601 Lind Ave. S.W., Renton,

WA 98055–4056, Telephone: (206) 277–

2611 on or before June 30, 1995.

Questions concerning the draft SEIS

or the process being applied by the FAA

in connection with this study should

also be directed to Mr. Ossenkop.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This SEIS

is being prepared in response to the

court’s decision in National Parks and

Conservation Association v. F.A.A., 988

F.2d 1523 (10th Cir., 1993), which

reserved the agency’s determination of

no significant impact from airport

operations on visitors to surrounding

recreational areas, and remanded the

matter back to the agency for further

analysis. Information, data, views and

comments obtained in the course of the

SEIS scoping process may be used in the

preparation of the draft SEIS. The

purpose of this notice is to inform the

public and state, local and Federal

governmental agencies of the fact that a

draft SEIS will be prepared and to

provide those interested in doing so

with an opportunity to present their

views, comments, information, data, or

other relevant observations concerning

the potential noise impacts on

surrounding recreational areas, related

to the operation of Cal Black Memorial

Airport. It is not the intent of FAA to

revisit any other environmental issue

evaluated in the 1990 EIS, in this SEIS.

The May 1990 Final EIS and August

1990 FAA Record of Decision related to

the construction of the airport can be

reviewed at the following locations:

San Juan County Courthouse, Monticello,

Utah 84535.

Federal Aviation Administration, Airports

Division, 1601 Lind Ave. S.W., Renton,

WA 98056–4056.

Denver Airports District Office, 5440 Roslyn,

Suite 300, Denver, CO 80216–6026.

Issued in Renton, Washington on March 9,

1995.

David A. Field,

Acting Manager, Airports Division, Federal

Aviation Administration, Northwest

Mountain Region, Renton, Washington.

[FR Doc. 95–7190 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

[Summary Notice No. PE–95–13]

Petitions For Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and