Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Notices 17375

1See Chicago Stock Exchange Guide, Article XX,

Rule 37(a), (CCH) ¶ 1714.

2The Exchange has indicated to the Commission

that this proposed rule change will have the effect

of an ‘‘enabling rule’’ whereby specialists may

provide better guarantees than currently is required

under the Rules through the Exchange’s Midwest

Automated Execution System (‘‘MAX’’). The

Exchange expects modifications to the parameters

of the automated execution system to be on a per

stock basis and the specific execution programs that

are necessary to implement these guarantees will be

filed in the future under Section 19(b)(3)(A).

Telephone conversation with Craig Long and David

Rusoff, Foley & Lardner, and Julio Mojica, Susan

Lee, and Jennifer Choi, SEC, on March 10, 1995.

The Exchange has indicated that the number of

parameters for the automated executions will be

limited. The Exchange anticipates that the options

would include: a system allowing thirty-second

order exposure, the automated execution system

within MAX in which a Specialist may voluntarily

choose to participate on a stock by stock basis

(‘‘SuperMAX’’), and the enhanced version of

SuperMAX (‘‘Enhanced SuperMAX’’), which is

Continued

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the New

York State official regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter

dated March 9, 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Reference and Documents Department,

Penfield Library, State University of

New York, Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8312 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–245]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its June 23, 1994, application

for proposed amendment to Facility

Operating License No. DPR–21 for

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit

1, located in New London County,

Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would

have reworded Technical Specification

3.7, ‘‘Containment Systems,’’ to permit

operation with one of the two circuits of

the reactor building ventilation logic

temporarily inoperable. In addition,

Section 3.7.C.1.b would have been

reworded to prohibit movement of

irradiated fuel, or movement of any

loads over irradiated fuel, without

secondary containment integrity.

The Commission had previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment published in

the Federal Register on August 31, 1994

(59 FR 45029). However, by letter dated

March 15, 1995, the licensee withdrew

the proposed change.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 23, 1994, and

the licensee’s letter dated March 15,

1995, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Learning Resource Center,

Three Rivers Community-Technical

College, Thames Valley Campus, 574

New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT

06360.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Andersen,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–4

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8309 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35547; File No. SR–CHX–

95–08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.,

Relating to Order Execution

Guarantees

March 29, 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 March 2, 1995, the

Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated

(‘‘CHX’’ 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 Exchange proposes to amend

Article XX, Rule 37 to add a new

subsection (d) thereunder. The text of

the proposed rule change is as follows

[new text is italicized]:

Article XX

Rule 37(d) Notwithstanding anything

herein to the contrary, a specialist may

voluntarily provide order execution

guarantees more favorable than those

required pursuant to this Rule 37 (i.e., greater

size, better price, limitations on partial

executions, etc.). At the request of a

specialist, the Exchange may provide for

automatic execution of orders in accordance

with such guarantees upon such terms and

conditions as the Exchange shall determine.

In either event, failure of a specialist to honor

a promised guarantee shall be deemed a

violation of Exchange rules.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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 give specialists on the

Exchange the ability to provide order

execution guarantees that are more

favorable than those required under the

BEST Rule 1 through the Exchange’s

automated execution system (‘‘MAX’’).2
17376 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Notices

available to CHX specialists as an addition or an

alternative to SuperMAX. The Exchange also has

stated that a specialist will be permitted to switch

from one set of parameters to another once a month.

Telephone conversation with David Rusoff, Foley &

Lardner and Jennifer Choi, SEC, on March 20, 1995.

3The Exchange has indicated that the ‘‘terms and

conditions’’ provision will provide the Exchange

with veto power over a specialists’s particular

request. Telephone conversation with Craig Long

and David Rusoff, Foley & Lardner, and Julio

Mojica, Susan Lee, and Jennifer Choi, SEC, on

March 10, 1995.

4The Dual Trading System of the Exchange

allows the execution of both round-lot and odd-lot

orders in certain issues assigned to specialists on

the Exchange and listed on either the New York

Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange.

5The term national best bid or best offer is

defined under SEC Rule 11Ac1–2 as the highest bid

or lowest offer for a reported security made

available by any reporting market center pursuant

to Rule 11Ac1–1 or the highest bid or lowest offer

for a security other than a reported security

disseminated by an over-the-counter market maker

in Level 2 or 3 of NASDAQ.

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1991).

3Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 made nonsubstantive, clarifying changes to the proposal. See

Letters from Jay O. Wright, Esq., Foley & Lardner,

to Elisa Metzger, Senior Counsel, SEC, dated

February 14, 1995 and March 30, 1995.

The automatic execution of these orders

sent over the MAX System would only

occur if a specialist requests it, and

then, only on those terms and

conditions set forth by the Exchange.3

The BEST Rule requires specialists to

execute agency market orders of 2099

shares or less in Dual Trading System

issues 4 or NASDAQ/NMS Securities at

the national best bid or best offer

(‘‘NBBO’’) 5 if certain conditions are

satisfied. Orders greater than 2099

shares, however, are not subject to the

rule. Under this proposed rule change,

a specialist could, for example, increase

the size of the guarantee, be more

flexible in providing partial executions,

or obligate itself to provide price

improvement under certain

circumstances.

Although nothing in the proposed

rule change requires a specialist to give

more favorable guarantees, if such

guarantees are provided through the

MAX System, the specialist must honor

the more favorable guarantee. Failure of

a specialist to honor the more favorable

guarantee will be deemed to be a

violation of Exchange Rules.

2. Statutory Basis

The proposed rule change is

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

Act in that it is designed to prevent

fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices and to perfect the mechanism

of a free and open market.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any inappropriate 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 either

solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register or

within such other period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date if it find 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 the 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, 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 at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of such

filing will also be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Exchange. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–CHX–95–08

and should be submitted by April 26,

1995.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–8260 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–35550; File No. SR–CHX–

95–03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order

Granting Approval to Proposal Rule

Change and Notice of Filing and Order

Granting Accelerated Approval of

Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule

Change Relating to Reporting and

Disclosure Requirements

March 30, 1995.

On February 6, 1995, the Chicago

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CHX’’ 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 to

amend various Exchange Rules

regarding reporting and disclosure

requirements. Specifically, the rule

change proposed to (1) Amend Article

VI, Rule 5 and add an interpretation

thereto to require that members and

member organizations maintain written

procedures to ensure compliance with

the securities laws (and SEC regulations

promulgated thereunder) and the Rules

of the Exchange; (2) amend Article XI,

Rule 4 to provide the Exchange with the

authority to require any member or

member organization to have an

accounting firm audit its books and to

clarify that all members and member

organizations are required to comply

with the disclosure requirements of

Rule 17a–5; and (3) add Article XI, Rule

9 to require that floor brokers who do

not clear their own trades procure a

letter of guarantee prior to trading. On

February 14, 1995 and March 30, 1995,

the Exchange submitted to the

Commission Amendments No. 1 and

No. 2, respectively, to the proposed rule

change.3

The proposed rule change was

published for comment in Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 35394

(February 17, 1995), 60 FR 10620

(February 27, 1995). No comments were

received on the proposal. This order

approves the proposed rule changes.

I. Proposal

Currently, Article VI, Rule 5(c)

requires each member organization that

does business with the public to

establish procedures, and a system for

applying such procedures, to assure that

its registered representatives and other