Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19971

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

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Wiscasset

Public Library, High Street, P.O. Box

367, Wiscasset, ME 04578. If a request

for a hearing or petition for leave to

intervene is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention and on

which the petitioner intends to rely in

proving the contention at the hearing.

The petitioner must also provide

references to those specific sources and

documents of which the petitioner is

aware and on which the petitioner

intends to rely to establish those facts or

expert opinion. Petitioner must provide

sufficient information to show that a

genuine dispute exists with the

applicant on a material issue of law or

fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Phillip

F. McKee: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to Mary Ann Lynch,

Esquire, Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Company, 329 Bath Road, Brunswick,

ME 04011, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714 (a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 14, 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

Wiscasset Public Library, High Street,

P.O. Box 367, Wiscasset, ME 04578.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Edouard H. Trottier,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–9894 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35613; File No. SR–DTC–

95–06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Depository Trust Company; Notice of

Filing of a Proposed Rule Change

Seeking to Modify the Same-Day

Funds Settlement System to

Accommodate the Overall Conversion

to Same-Day Funds Settlement for

Securities Transactions

April 17, 1995.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

March 22, 1995, The Depository Trust

Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–DTC–95–06) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which items have been prepared

primarily by DTC. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.
19972 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

2The term ‘‘same-day funds’’ refers to payment in

funds that are immediately available and generally

are transferred by electronic means.

3The term ‘‘next-day funds’’ refers to payment by

means of certified checks that are for value on the

following day.

4For a description of the SDFS system, refer to

Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 24689 (July 9,

1987), 52 FR 26613 [File No. SR–DTC–87–04] (order

granting temporary approval to DTC’s SDFS

settlement service); 26051 (August 31, 1988), 53 FR

34853 [File No. SR–DTC–88–06] (order granting

permanent approval to DTC’s SDFS settlement

service); and 33958 (April 22, 1994), 59 FR 22878

[SR–DTC–93–12] (order temporarily approving the

MMI settlement program).

5The Depository Trust Company and National

Securities Clearing Corporation, Memorandum (July

1, 1992) (‘‘1992 Memorandum’’); The Depository

Trust Company and National Securities Clearing

Corporation, Memorandum (July 26, 1993) (‘‘1993

Memorandum’’); The Depository Trust Company

and National Securities Clearing Corporation,

Memorandum (July 29, 1994) (‘‘1994

Memorandum’’).

6The Group of Thirty was established in 1978 as

an independent, non-partisan, non-profit

organization composed of international financial

leaders whose focus is on international economic

and financial issues.

7 Group of Thirty, Clearance and Settlement

Systems in the World’s Securities Markets (March

1989) (‘‘Group of Thirty Report’’).

8Only one DTC Participants Fund will be needed

when the NDFS system and the SDFS system are

combined in a new SDFS system. Based on current

activity levels, DTC believes that a $400 million

cash-only Participants Fund will provide sufficient

protection against present liquidity and credit risks.

Pursuant to its rules, DTC may change the formulas

used to determine a participant’s required deposit

or require a participant to make additional deposits

to the Participants Fund.

9The new SDFS system would monitor the levels

of a participant’s net settlement debits during each

day and record the highest net debit experienced by

that participant. This measure of liquidity is

referred to as the participant’s ‘‘intra-day net debit

peak.’’

10For example, assume DTC had three

participants, A, B, and C, and had established a

$400,000,000 Participants Fund. Each participant’s

minimum deposit would be $10,000 for a total of

$30,000 which leaves $399,970,000 as the

incremental fund deposit amount needed for the

Participants Fund. In order to allocate the

$399,970,000 among the three participants, their

respective average intraday net debit peaks would

be used. Assume Participant A’s average net debit

peak is $300,000,000, Participant B’s is

$500,000,000, and Participant C’s is $500,000,000.

Since all incurred net debit peaks of at least

$300,000,000, each created liquidity needs of

$300,000,000 and would contribute equally to

provide DTC’s first $300,000,000. Each would be

responsible for a $10,000 minimum deposit plus a

$99,990,000 increment bringing the total to

$100,000,000 for each participant. Participants B

and C would be asigned an additional $100,000,000

increment since they were responsible for creating

liquidity needs up to $500,000,000. Together, A, B,

and C would be assigned incremental amounts

totaling $499,970,000. Since the goal is to create a

$400,000,000. Participants Fund, the $499,970,000

must be prorated downward to 399,370,000, the

amount needed in addition to their minimum

contributions to achieve $400,000,000. Each

participant’s increments would be reduced by

applying a factor of .799988 (i.e., 399,970,000/

499,970,000). Their required deposits would then

be as follows:

11Net debit caps will be determined by and will

be applied to a participant’s simulated net debit

balances caused by the Largest Provisional Net

Credit (‘‘LPNC’’) procedure described below.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to convert DTC’s current

same-day funds 2 settlement (‘‘SDFS’’)

system Participants Fund to an all cash

fund and to modify certain risk

management controls and other features

of the SDFS system. The proposed rule

change is part of the conversion of

DTC’s entire money settlement system

to an SDFS system. The Participants

Fund for the next-day funds 3 settlement

(‘‘NDFS’’) system will not be affected by

the proposed rule change.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission,

DTC included statements concerning

the purpose of and basis for the

proposed rule change and discussed any

comments that it received on the

proposed rule change. The text of these

statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. DTC

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

DTC currently processes the money

settlements related to different types of

securities transactions in either the

NDFS system or the SDFS system. The

NDFS system is used primarily for the

money settlement of equity, corporate

debt, and municipal debt issue

transactions. The SDFS system began

operation in 1987 and is used primarily

for the money settlement of transactions

in commercial paper and other money

market instruments (‘‘MMIs’’).4

DTC and the National Securities

Clearing Corporation (‘‘NSCC’’) jointly

issued three memoranda which

described DTC’s and NSCC’s respective

plans for converting their payment

system to SDFS.5 DTC’s sections of the

memoranda described its plan to

combine its NDFS and SDFS systems

into a single system which will be based

on the design of the current SDFS

system with some modifications. DTC’s

and NSCC’s plans are in accord with the

1989 recommendation of the

international Group of Thirty 6 that all

securities transactions should settle in

same-day funds.7

All issues currently settling in DTC’s

NDFS system will be converted to the

SDFS system on a single day, which

DTC anticipates will occur in the fourth

quarter of 1995 or the first quarter of

1996. In order to assure an efficient

conversion, certain modifications to the

current SDFS system will be

implemented at various times during

1995 prior to the overall conversion

date. The proposed rule change will

implement a number of the

modifications described in the 1994

Memorandum.

Currently, the SDFS system

Participants Fund consists of cash and

securities and has separate components

for money market instruments and for

other SDFS system securities. The

proposed rule change seeks to convert

DTC’s SDFS system Participants Fund

to an all cash fund with no separate

component for the MMI Program.8 The

proposed rule change also seeks to

decrease the minimum deposit to the

SDFS system Participants Fund from

$200,000 to $10,000 and to change the

method of calculating a participant’s

required deposit.

The proposed SDFS Participants Fund

formula bases each participant’s

required deposit on the amount of

liquidity that the participant uses in the

system. A participant’s liquidity use is

determined by a sixty day rolling

average of the participant’s intraday net

debit peaks.9 The proposed rule change

will require a participant to deposit in

the SDFS Participants Fund an amount

equal to that participant’s proportional

liquidity needs.10

A: $10,000+($99,990,000×.799988)= $80,000,800

B: $10,000+

($199,990,000×.799988)= ............... 159,999,600

C: $10,000+

($199,990,000×.799988)= ............... 159,999,600

400,000,000

In addition, the proposed rule change

seeks to modify certain risk

management controls in the SDFS

system. The method used to calculate

the net debit cap for each participant

will be changed 11 and the maximum net

debit cap for each participant will be

increased to $900,000,000 for

approximately $580,000,000 today. The

proposed rule change also seeks to add

the Largest Provisional Net Credit

(‘‘LPNC’’) calculation control which is

applied to a participant’s net settlement

balance and collateral monitor in order

to protect DTC against the combined

failure of an issuer of MMIs and a

participant. The LPNC control creates a

provisional or simulated net balance by
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19973

12 DTC will subtract the amount of a participant’s

largest provisional net credit due to transactions in

any single issuer’s MMIs from the participant’s

collateral monitor (‘‘simulated collateral monitor’’)

and net debit or credit balance (‘‘simulated

balance’’). If a transaction will cause the simulated

collateral monitor to turn negative (i.e., the

participant’s collateral would be insufficient to

cover its simulated net debit after the transaction)

or the resulting net debit balance to exceed the

participant’s net debit cap, the transaction will be

blocked. Blocked transactions will be recycled until

credits from other transactions in MMIs of issuers

other than those of the largest provisional net credit

cause the simulated collateral monitor to be

positive or the resulting net debit to be within the

net debit cap limits.

13A reclamation is the return of a delivery order

or a payment order by a participant.

14RAD allows participants to review and either

approve or cancel incoming deliveries before they

are processed in DTC’s system.

15 DTC’s Account Transfer Processor system

provides for the recycling or pending of

transactions that cannot be completed due to a

participant’s insufficient positions or violation of

risk management controls (i.e., Net Debit Cap and

Collateral Monitor).

16Under Options 1 and 2, CNS deliveries are

always given the highest priority on the recycle

guene. 17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1994).

withholding a participant’s largest net

settlement credit due to transactions in

any single issuer’s MMIs. The risk

management controls will be applied to

the provisional net balance that is

created by the LPNC procedure, and

transactions that cause the provisional

net balance to violate those risk

management controls will not be

completed.12

The proposed rule change also seeks

to modify certain aspects of DTC’s

Participant Operating Procedures on

reclamations for both the NDFS and the

SDFS systems,13 the Receiver

Authorized Delivery (‘‘RAD’’) service 14

and the recycle algorithm for delivery

orders.15 The modified procedures

provide for the validation of all delivery

order and payment order reclaims by

DTC’s system and establish a minimum

threshold of $15,000,000 for bilateral

RAD limits. DTC also proposes to offer

SDFS system users a second recycle

option for delivery orders. Transactions

that are recycled because of insufficient

positions or management controls are

currently prioritorized based on type of

transaction and then size of transaction

(‘‘Option 1’’). The second option will

provide participants with the ability to

choose whether pending transactions

caused by an insufficient position

would be recycled in the order in which

they were entered (first in, first out) or

in the Option 1 prioritization

schedule.16

Most of the modifications to be

implemented by the proposed rule

change will be effective on dates to be

specified by DTC in the second quarter

of 1995. The control involving the LPNC

calculation and the $15,000,000

threshold of bilateral RAD limits will be

made effective on dates to be specified

by DTC in the third quarter of 1995.

DTC believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder because converting all of

DTC’s payment systems to an SDFS

system will facilitate the prompt and

accurate clearance and settlement of

securities transactions.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

DTC does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impact or

impose a burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

The conversion plans were described

in detail in the three memoranda

referenced above and have been

discussed extensively with DTC

participants and securities industry

organizations. The 1994 Memorandum

described changes in the conversion

plans as a result of those discussions.

Since the distribution of the 1994

Memorandum, written comments from

DTC participants or others on the

modifications to the current SDFS

system to be implemented by this

proposed rule change have not been

received. No other written comments

have been solicited or received. DTC

will notify the Commission of any

written comments received by DTC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within thirty-five 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

ninety 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 DTC 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

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 DTC. All submissions should

refer to file number SR–DTC–95–06 and

should be submitted by May 12, 1995.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.17

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9911 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 35–26273]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935, as Amended

(‘‘Act’’)

April 14, 1995.

Notice is hereby given that the

following filing(s) has/have been made

with the Commission pursuant to

provisions of the Act and rules

promulgated thereunder. All interested

persons are referred to the application(s)

and/or declarations(s) for complete

statements of the proposed

transaction(s) summarized below. The

application(s) and/or declaration(s) and

any amendments thereto is/are available

for public inspection through the

Commission’s Office of Public

Reference.

Interested persons wishing to

comment or request a hearing on the

application(s) and/or declaration(s)

should submit their views in writing by

May 8, 1995, to the Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20549, and serve a

copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or

declarant(s) at the address(es) specified

below. Proof of service (by affidavit or,

in case of an attorney at law, by

certificate) should be filed with the

request. Any request for hearing shall

identify specifically the issues of fact or

law that are disputed. A person who so

requests will be notified of any hearing,