Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices 24525

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36964

(March 13, 1996), 61 FR 11453 (March 20, 1996)

(File No. SR–CBOE–95–68).

9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).

10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a) (12) (1994).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Letter from Murray L. Ross, Secretary, Phlx,

to Jon Kroeper, Attorney, SEC, dated May 8, 1996

(‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). Amendment No. 1 amends

the text of the proposed rule change to delay the

implementation of the proposed rule change until

March 26, 1997, which is the organizational

meeting of the Phlx Board of Governors after the

next scheduled annual election of governors. In its

April 17, 1996 meeting, the Board resolved by

consensus to retain for the 1996–97 governance year

recently appointed Chairmen of Standing

Committees that are not members of the Board.

Amendment No. 1 also contains representations by

the Exchange as to the application of its conflict of

interest policy to Standing Committees of the Board

and the Chairmen thereof. See infra note 7 for a

description of such representations.

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).

6Presently, the Standing Committees of the Phlx

Board of Governors consist of the following: an

Admissions Committee, an Allocation, Evaluation

and Securities Committee, an Arbitration

Committee, an Audit Committee, a Business

Conduct Committee, an Elections Committee, an

Executive Committee, a Finance Committee, a

Foreign Currency Options Committee, a Marketing

Committee, a Nominating Committee, and an

Options Committee. See Phlx By-Laws, Art. X, § 10–

1(a).

‘‘all or none’’ or ‘‘fill or kill’’

instructions, and the orders may not be

executed until the procedures in

Exchange Rule 6.47(b) and Options

Floor Procedure Advice A–6 have been

satisfied, and crowd members have been

given a reasonable time to participate in

the trade.

Fifth, in no event may the aggregate

exempted position under Commentary

.08 exceed the number of contracts

specified in the exemption’s table, i.e.,

twice the applicable standard limit,

excluding interest rate options which

are set at three times the applicable

standard limit.

Sixth, the facilitation firm may not

increase the exempted options position

once it is closed, unless approval from

the Exchange is again received pursuant

to a reapplication under Commentary

.08.

In summary, the Commission believes

that the safeguards built into the

facilitation exemption process discussed

above should serve to minimize the

potential for disruption and

manipulation, while at the same time

benefitting market participants by

allowing member firms greater

flexibility to facilitate large customer

orders. This structure substantially

mirrors the firm facilitation exemption

process that was recently approved for

the Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’).8 The PSE also has

surveillance procedures to surveil for

compliance with the rule’s

requirements. Accordingly, the

Commission believes it is appropriate to

extend the benefits of a firm facilitation

exemption to non-multiply-listed PSE

option issues.

The Commission finds good cause to

approve the proposed rule change,

including Amendment No. 1, prior to

the thirtieth day after the date of

publication of notice of filing thereof in

the Federal Register. Specifically, by

accelerating the approval of the

Exchange’s rule proposal, as amended,

the Commission is conforming the

Exchange’s firm facilitation exemption

to the relief recently approved for the

CBOE. Accelerated approval of the

proposed rule change will thereby

provide for the desired uniformity of the

exchanges’ position limit exemptions.

Any other course of action could lead to

unnecessary investor confusion. In

addition, the CBOE’s proposal was

noticed for the entire twenty-one day

comment period and generated no

responses. Accordingly, the

Commission believes that it is

consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and

19(b)(2) of the Act to approve the

proposed rule change, as amended, on

an accelerated basis.

V. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) 9 of the Act, that the

proposed rule change (File No. SR–PSE–

96–10), as amended, is hereby approved

on an accelerated basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority. 10

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12173 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37180; File No. SR–Phlx–

96–04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;

Order Granting Approval to Proposed

Rule Change and Notice of Filing and

Order Granting Accelerated Approval

to Amendment No. 1 Relating to

Amendment of Its By-Laws To Require

That the Chairman of Each Standing

Committee Must Be a Member of the

Board of Governors

May 9, 1996.

I. Introduction

On January 22, 1996, the Philadelphia

Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ 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

require that the Chairman of each

Standing Committee of the Exchange’s

Board of Governors must be a member

of the Board of Governors.

The proposed rule change was

published for comment in Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 36832

(February 12, 1996), 61 FR 6280

(February 16, 1996). No comments were

received on the proposal. On May 9,

1996, the Exchange submitted to the

Commission Amendment No. 1 to the

proposed rule change.3 This order

approves the proposal, including

Amendment No. 1 on an accelerated

basis.

II. Description

The proposed rule change to Article

X, Section 10–1(a) of the Exchange’s ByLaws mandates that, effective March 26,

1997, the Chairman of each Standing

Committee of the Phlx’s Board of

Governors shall be a member of the

Board of Governors. The proposed rule

change is intended to update the

structural composition of the Standing

Committees and make them more

directly responsive to the Board of

Governors.

III. Discussion

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, with the

requirements of Section 6(b).4

Specifically, the Commission believes

that the proposed rule change is

consistent with the Section 6(b)(1) 5

requirement that an exchange be

organized to carry out the purposes of

the Act and to enforce compliance by its

members and persons associated with

its members with the provisions of the

Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder.

By requiring that the Chairman of

each Standing Committee of the Board

of Governors 6 must be a member of the

Board of Governors, the proposed rule

change will enable the Board to more

closely oversee the exercise of the

authority it has delegated to the

Standing Committees and increase the

responsiveness of the Committees to the

Board’s concerns therewith. As a result,

the proposed rule change may enhance

the Board’s ability to perform its

responsibilities under the By-Laws and

Rules of the Exchange and, in turn, the
24526 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Notices

7 In Amendment No. 1 the Exchange has

represented that Art. IV, § 4–8 of the Phlx By-Laws,

which provides that ‘‘no person shall participate in

the adjudication of a matter in which he is

personally interested,’’ specifically applies to

members of the Board of Governors acting as such.

The Exchange also has represented that it has

applied this conflict of interest provision to the

conduct of all Standing Committee, subcommittee,

hearing panel and panel members. Moreover, in the

context of the proposed rule change, the Exchange

has represented that no Chairman of a Standing

Committee may participate in the deliberation or

voting on any matter in which such member or his

or her affiliated firm may have an interest in the

outcome. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

Exchange’s performance of its

obligations under the Act.7

The Commission finds good cause for

approving Amendment No. 1 prior to

the thirtieth day after the date of

publication of notice thereof in the

Federal Register. Amendment No. 1

merely delays the implementation of the

rule until the 1997–98 governance year,

and does not propose new substantive

provisions to the proposed rule change.

Accordingly, the Commission believes

that consistent with Section 19(b)(2),

good cause exists to accelerate approval

of Amendment No. 1.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning Amendment No.

1 to the proposed rule change. 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

rules change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to Amendment

No. 1 between the Commission and any

persons, 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 at the

principal office of the Phlx. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–Phlx–96–04 and should be

submitted by [insert date 21 days from

date of publication].

V. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,8 that the

proposed rule change (SR–Phlx–96–04),

as amended, is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12175 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–96–24]

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

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. D. Michael Smith, Office of

Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–7470.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 10,

1996.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No: 009SW

Petitioner: Kaman Aerospace

Corporation

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

27.1(a)

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

an increase in the maximum gross

weight of the Kaman Model K–1200

from 6,000 lbs. to 6,500 lbs. while

maintaining the original normal

category rotorcraft certification.

GRANT, April 25, 1996, Exemption No.

6433

Docket No: 25726

Petitioner: Valley Flying Service, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.197(c)(2)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the issuance of

a special flight permit with

continuing authorization to the

petitioner for aircraft that are operated

and maintained in accordance with

§§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419.

DENIAL, March 18, 1996, Exemption

No. 6414

Docket No: 25738

Petitioner: CCAir, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.197(c)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow the issuance of

a special flight permit with

continuing authorization to the

petitioner for aircraft that are operated

and maintained in accordance with

§§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419.

DENIAL, March 18, 1996, Exemption

No. 6415

Docket No: 28269

Petitioner: Learjet, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.562(c)(5) and 25.785(a)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To allow exemption from

the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) of

§§ 25.562(c)(5) and 25.785(a) for

passenger seating in Learjet Model 45

airplanes.

PARTIAL GRANT, April 9, 1996,

Exemption No. 6420

Docket No: 28345

Petitioner: Air Vegas, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.180(a)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Air Vegas, Inc.,

to operate 6 turbine-powered

Beechcraft C99 (B–C99) airplanes that

have a passenger seat configuration of

15 seats without those airplanes being

equipped with an approved traffic

alert and collision avoidance system

(TCAS I).

DENIAL, April 4, 1996, Exemption No.

6419

Docket No: 28452

Petitioner: Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.562(b)(2)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit exemption

from the floor warpage testing

requirement of § 25.562(b)(2), as

amended by Amendment 25–64, for