26552 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Notices

1 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F) (1988).

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1995).

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

2The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries submitted by PTC.

activity currently is conducted for cash

activity and is the means of trading

preferred by GSCC’s members because

of its efficiencies.

5. East of Transition to Fully Automated

Services

GSCC and its participants will gain

experience in processing blind-broker

repos during this first implementation

stage. This experience will aid GSCC in

developing and fine-tuning the fully

automated blind brokering service that

will provide for the settlement of sameday-settling repo start legs directly

through GSCC. In the future, when fully

automated services are available, IDBs

will make the processing switch to

submitting locked-in trade data, and

GSCC anticipates a smooth transition to

the new service.

GSCC believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder. In particular, the proposed

rule change is consistent with Section

17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 10 because it is

designed to assure the safeguarding of

securities and funds that are in the

custody or control of GSCC or for which

it is responsible, and it will reduce the

risk exposure to its solvent participants

from the default of common

participants. Further, the proposed rule

change will foster cooperation and

coordination with entities engaged in

the clearance and settlement of

securities transactions.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

GSCC does not believe that the

proposed rule will have an 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

Comments on the proposed rule

change have not yet been solicited or

received. Members will be notified of

the rule filing, and comments will be

solicited by an important notice. GSCC

will notify the Commission of any

written comments received by GSCC.

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

(1) 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 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 submission

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 GSCC. All submissions should

refer to File No. SR–GSCC–96–04 and

should be submitted by June 18, 1996.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.11

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13251 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37227; File No. SR–PTC–

96–01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Participants Trust Company; Notice of

Filing of a Proposed Rule Change

Eliminating the Deduction of Reserve

on Gain in the Calculation of Net Free

Equity for Proprietary and Agency

Accounts of a Receiving Participant in

Certain Transactions

May 20, 1996.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

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

February 5, 1996, the Participants Trust

Company (‘‘PTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–PTC–96–01) as

described in Items I, II, and III below,

which items have been prepared

primarily by PTC. 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 purpose of the proposed rule

change is to amend Article I, Rule 1 of

PTC’s Rules to eliminate the deduction

of reserve on gain (‘‘ROG’’) in the

calculation of net free equity (‘‘NFE’’)

for proprietary and agency accounts of

a receiving participant in certain

transactions while retaining the

deduction of ROG as it applies to the

calculation of NFE for proprietary and

agency accounts of a delivering

participant.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, PTC

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. PTC has prepared

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),

and (C) below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.2

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to amend Article I, Rule 1 of

PTC’s Rules to eliminate the deduction

of ROG in the calculation of NFE for

proprietary and agency accounts of a

receiving participant in certain

transactions. PTC intends to retain the

deduction of ROG as it applies to the

calculation of NFE for proprietary and

agency accounts of a delivering

participant.

Under PTC’s current rules, in

connection with any account transfer

versus payment, ROG is: (1) With

respect to a delivering participant, the

amount by which the contract value

credited to the cash balance of the

account of the delivering participant

exceeds the market value of the

securities delivered or (ii) with respect
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Notices 26553

3 In 1988, MBS Clearing Corporation (‘‘MBSCC’’),

PTC’s predecessor, proposed a rule change to its

Depository Division rules to include receiver’s ROG

in the NFE calculation of a receiving participant’s

account. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26101

(September 22, 1988), 53 FR 37895 [File No. SR–

MBS–88–14] (notice of filing of proposed rule

change relating to Depository Division rules).

Subsequently, the order granting PTC’s registration

as a clearing agency incorporated the proposed rule

change stating that PTC’s rules were essentially

identical to MBSCC’s Depository Division rules

including the most recently proposed rule changes.

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26671 (March

31, 1989), 54 FR 13266, [File No. 600–25] (order

granting registration as a clearing agency and

statement of reasons).

4For a more complete discussion of PTC’s

reasons for removing the reversal capability, refer

to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27193

(August 29, 1989), 54 FR 37065 [File No. SR–PTC–

89–02] (order approving proposed rule change). 5 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1995).

to a receiving participant, the amount by

which the market value of the securities

credited to the transfer account

associated with the account of the

receiving participant exceeds the

contract value of the transaction. As

explained below, ROG (if applicable) is

excluded in the computation of NFE for

proprietary and agency accounts.

As set forth in Article II, Rule 9 of

PTC’s Rules, NFE for any agency or

proprietary account is calculated as the

sum of (i) the applicable percentage, as

defined in Article I, Rule 1 of PTC’s

rules, of the market value of securities

in the account and the associated

transfer account, (ii) the cash balance in

the account, and (iii) the participant’s

supplemental processing collateral, as

calculated pursuant to the formula set

forth in Article I, Rule 1 of PTC’s rules,

to the extent not required to

collateralize an account transfer in any

other account, minus the amount (if

any) of ROG with respect to the account.

NFE measures the value associated

with the account of a participant that is

available to support transaction

processing to or from the participant’s

account. Under Article II, Rule 9,

Section 2 and Article II, Rule 13, PTC

will not process an account transfer of

securities if as a result of such transfer

the account of that delivering

participant or receiving participant will

have negative NFE.

In any account transfer versus

payment from a proprietary of agency

account in which the contract value of

the securities exceed the market value,

the deliverer’s ROG is the difference in

those values. The deliverer’s ROG is

deduced in calculating the NFE of the

account of the delivering participant to

prevent the delivering participant from

using the gain on the transaction to

increase its NFE (i.e., the amount

available to the participant to support

other activity in its account). The

deduction of the deliverer’s ROG creates

an NFE ‘‘reserve’’ to ensure that if

necessary sufficient funds exist in the

delivering participant’s account to

permit the debit of the contract value

from the cash balance in the account of

the delivering participant in the event

the transaction is reversed (i.e.,

‘‘DK’ed’’) by the receiving participant

because of error or other circumstances

permitted under the guidelines for good

delivery. The ROG deduction also

prevents a delivering participant, who

inputs the terms of the trade on PTC’s

system, from abusing the system by

creating additional NFE through the

delivery versus payment of securities at

an artificially inflated value.

The receiver’s ROG is the difference

in value that results when the market

value of securities received into a

proprietary or agency account versus

payment exceeds the contract value of

the securities. (I.e., On the receive-side

of the transaction, the amount of the

potential NFE gain would be the excess

of market value of the securities over

contract value.) Currently, the receiver’s

ROG is deducted in the calculation of

NFE of the account of the receiving

participant. However, the rationale for

deducting the receiver’s ROG is

different from that for deducting the

deliverer’s ROG. Unlike deliver-side

ROG, receive-side ROG is not needed to

ensure a receiving participant’s ability

to reverse a securities transaction

because the receiving participant

initiates the reversal and controls the

availability of NFE in its account.

The deduction of the receiver’s ROG

in the NFE calculation for an account of

a receiving participant was incorporated

into PTC’s rules in 1989 pursuant to the

order granting PTC’s registration as a

clearing agency. The rule’s purpose was

to assure sufficient NFE in an account

to enable PTC to reverse securities

deliveries to achieve settlement in the

event of participant default.3 The

provisions of PTC’s rules providing the

ability to reverse transactions has been

deleted.4 Accordingly, deduction of

ROG from the NFE on the receive-side

is no longer required.

PTC believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder because the proposal

facilitates the prompt and accurate

clearance and settlement of securities

transactions and provides for the

safeguarding of securities and funds in

PTC’s possession or control or for which

PTC is responsible.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

PTC does not perceive that the

proposed rule change will impose a

burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

PTC has not solicited nor received

written comments on this proposed rule

change.

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 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 provisions of

5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for

inspection and copying in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room,

450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC

20549. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of PTC. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–PTC–96–01 and should be

submitted by June 18, 1996.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.5
26554 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 / Notices

1 Includes Docket No. AB–6 (Sub-No. 374),

Burlington Northern Railroad Company—Adverse

Discontinuance—in Denver, CO, Docket No. AB–33

(Sub-No. 92), Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Adverse Discontinuance—in Denver, CO, and

Docket No. AB–446 (Sub-No. 2), Denver Terminal

Railroad Company—Adverse Abandonment—in

Denver, CO.

1The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.

104–88, 109 Stat. 803, which was enacted on

December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1,

1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC) and transferred certain functions

and proceedings to the Surface Transportation

Board (Board). This notice relates to functions that

are subject to Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 10902.

1The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.

104–88, 109 Stat. 803, which was enacted on

December 29, 1995, and took effect on January 1,

1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce

Commission and transferred certain functions to the

Surface Transportation Board (Board). This notice

relates to functions that are subject to the Board’s

jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10903.

2The Board will grant a stay if an informed

decision on environmental issues (whether raised

by a party or by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Board may take appropriate action before

the exemption’s effective date.

3See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

4The Board will accept late-filed trail use

requests so long as the abandonment has not been

consummated and the abandoning railroad is

willing to negotiate an agreement.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13250 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting; Board

Conference

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., June 5, 1996.

PLACE: Hearing Room A, Surface

Transportation Board, 1201 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20423.

STATUS: The Board will meet to discuss

among themselves the following agenda

items. Although the conference is open

for the public observation, no public

participation is permitted.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

STB Ex Parte No. 529, Class Exemption for

Acquisition or Operation of Rail Line by

Class III Rail Carriers Under 49 U.S.C. 10902.

Docket No. AB–452 (Sub-No. 1X), The

Western Stock Show Association—

Abandonment Exemption—in Denver, CO.

Finance Docket No. 32802, Philadelphia

Belt Line Railroad Company v. Consolidated

Rail Corporation, CP Rail System, and CSX

Transportation, Inc. Docket No. AB–1 (SubNo. 192X) Chicago and North Western

Transportation Company-Abandonment

Exemption—Guthrie and Dallas Counties,

IA.1

CONTACT PERSONS FOR MORE

INFORMATION: Dennis Watson, Office of

Congressional and Press Service,

Telephone: (202) 927–5350, TDD: (202)

927–5721.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13445 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 1

[STB Finance Docket No. 32888]

Angelina & Neches River Railroad

Company—Purchase Exemption—

Texas South-Eastern Railroad

Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The Board, under 49 U.S.C.

10502, exempts from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10902, the

acquisition of approximately 2.9 miles

of rail line in Lufkin, Angelina County,

TX, by Angelina & Neches River

Railroad Company, a Class III railroad.

DATES: The exemption will be effective

June 28, 1996. Petitions to stay must be

filed by June 10, 1996. Petitions to

reopen must be filed by June 18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings, referring to

STB Finance Docket No. 32888 to: (1)

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

1201 Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423; and (2)

petitioner’s representative: Peter A.

Greene, THOMPSON HINE & FLORY

P.L.I., Suite 800, 1920 N Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927–5660.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Board’s decision. To purchase a

copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: DC News &

Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20423. Telephone

(202) 289–4357/4359. [Assistance for

the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services (202) 927–5721.]

Decided: May 15, 1996.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Simmons, and Commissioner

Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13277 Filed 5–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

Surface Transportation Board 1

[STB Docket No. AB–413 (Sub-No. 1X)]

Great Western Railway of Iowa, L.L.C.,

d/b/a Council Bluffs Railway—

Abandonment Exemption—in Council

Bluffs, IA

Great Western Railway of Iowa,

L.L.C., d/b/a Council Bluffs Railway

(CBGR) filed a notice of exemption

under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt

Abandonments to abandon

approximately 1 mile of its line of

railroad from milepost 409.5 on the west

side of Iowa State Highway 192 (also

known as the South Expressway), to

milepost 410.5 near South 17th Street,

including the Milwaukee Connector

Track, in the City of Council Bluffs,

Pottawattamie County, IA.

CBGR has certified that: (1) No local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on

the line has been rerouted; (3) no formal

complaint filed by a user of rail service

on the line (or by a state or local

government entity acting on behalf of

such user) regarding cessation of service

over the line either is pending with the

Board or with any U.S. District Court or

has been decided in favor of

complainant within the 2-year period;

and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR

1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR

1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR

1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and

49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to

governmental agencies) have been met.

As a condition to use of this

exemption, any employee adversely

affected by the abandonment shall be

protected under Oregon Short Line R.

Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C.

91 (1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

must be filed.

Provided no formal expression of

intent to file an offer of financial

assistance (OFA) has been received, this

exemption will be effective on June 27,

1996, unless stayed pending

reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do

not involve environmental issues,2

formal expressions of intent to file an

OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),3 and

trail use/rail banking requests under 49

CFR 1152.29 4 must be filed by June 7,

1996. Petitions to reopen or requests for

public use conditions under 49 CFR