28922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

36Specifically, in the context of a formal

disciplinary proceeding the Exchange has the

ability to discipline its members and any persons

associated with a member ‘‘by expulsion,

suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and

operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred

from being associated with a member or any other

fitting sanction.’’ See CHX Rules, Article XII, Rule

8(a). As the Panel may only impose monetary fines

under the Procedure, the commenter’s proposal

could restrict the Exchange to imposing such fines

in formal disciplinary proceedings arising out of

appeals of minor rule violations, thus depriving the

Exchange of the opportunity to impose what may

be a more appropriate sanction in light of its

findings in a formal hearing.

37See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 13726

(July 8, 1977), 42 FR 36411 (July 14, 1977).

38See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013

(June 1, 1984), 49 FR 23828 (June 8, 1984).

39See supra Section IV.A.

40Although the CHX Board of Governors makes

the initial determination of whether an Exchange

rule violation is ‘‘minor’’ for purposes of inclusion

in new Article XII, Rule 9 and the Plan, this

determination is subject to SEC review pursuant to

Sections 19 (b)(1) and (d)(1) of the Act and Rules

19b–4 and 19d–1(c)(2) thereunder. The SEC notes

that Article XII, Rule 9 fines in excess of $2500 are

not considered assessed pursuant to the Plan and,

accordingly, must be reported on an immediate

basis to the SEC under Section 19(d)(1) of the Act

and Rule 19d–1 thereunder.

41 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)

42 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) and (a)(44).

Procedure gives its staff the same

prosecutorial discretion as that

approved by the Commission for use by

other SROs in their minor rule violation

procedures. In addition, the Procedure

limits the staff’s discretion by requiring

that the Panel impose all fines against

alleged violators. Moreover, as has been

noted above, the Procedure is to be

utilized in situations where a rule

violation is technical and objective or

minor in nature; the Commission

expects that the Exchange will resolve

more serious violations of such rules

through the use of formal disciplinary

proceeding. The Comment Letters make

the related argument that the

availability of the Procedure opens the

possibility that the Exchange could

abuse its discretion and utilize either

the Procedure or full disciplinary

proceedings depending upon the

identity of the alleged violator. The

Commission believes that this concern

is alleviated by the Commission’s ability

to review the disciplinary actions taken

by the Exchange through both the CHX’s

formal reporting under Rule 19d–1 and

proposed quarterly reporting under the

Plan, and as part of the Commission’s

regular oversight inspections of the

Exchange.

Second, the Commission notes that

the commenter’s concern that the roles

of the CHX’s President, under the

Exchange’s existing disciplinary

procedures and the Procedure, as

originally filed, would create an

unsound result has been rendered moot

by the removal in Amendment No. 3 of

any role on the part of the President in

the imposition of fines under the

Procedure.

Third, the commenter argues that

because any contest of a fine imposed

under the Procedure converts the matter

into a formal disciplinary proceeding

with the potential for the imposition of

more severe sanctions, the Procedure

imposes a chilling effect on a member’s

ability to contest such a fine. The

Commission believes that the

commenter’s argument is misplaced.

The availability of a minor rule

violation procedure benefits not only an

exchange, for the reasons noted above,

but alleged violators of rules deemed

minor rule violations as well. In having

the ability to pay a fine assessed under

a minor rule violation procedure instead

of being subject to the initiation of

formal disciplinary procedures as a

matter of course, an alleged violator has

the opportunity to avoid the

expenditure of time and resources, as

well as the attendant publicity, that a

formal disciplinary proceeding may

entail. An alleged violator receives these

benefits while retaining his or her due

process rights to contest the charges in

a formal disciplinary proceeding.

As for the commenter’s suggestion

that the Exchange could prevent such a

‘‘chilling effect’’ by amending the

proposed rule change to provide that no

more severe sanction could be imposed

in any formal disciplinary proceeding

arising out of a contest of a minor rule

violation fine than that originally

imposed under the Procedure, the

Commission believes that such a

provision would limit unduly the

Exchange’s discretion to impose what it

believed were appropriate sanctions as

a result of the findings it made with

regard to a matter in a formal

disciplinary proceeding.36

Finally, the commenter questions the

necessity for the Procedure given the

existence of summary disciplinary

procedures in Article XII, Rule 2(a) of

the Exchange’s rules. The Commission

does not believe that an Exchange’s

ability to adopt a minor rule violation

procedure and reporting plan should be

limited by the existence of other

summary procedures in an exchange’s

rules. Additionally, the Commission

notes that the Article XII, Rule 2(a)

procedure is incompatible with a minor

rule violation reporting plan, as any

proceeding under Rule 2(a) is

considered a formal disciplinary

proceeding under CHX rules, making

any action taken under these procedures

a ‘‘final disciplinary action’’ under Rule

19d–1, and therefore immediately

reportable to the Commission.

C. Minor Rule Violation Reporting Plan

In adopting Rule 19d–1, the

Commission noted that the Rule was an

attempt to balance the informational

needs of the Commission against the

reporting burdens of the SROs.37 In

promulgating paragraph (c)(2) of Rule

19d–1, the Commission attempted to

reduce the reporting burdens of the

SROs by permitting, where immediate

reporting was unnecessary, periodic

reporting of minor rule violations.38

Any minor rule violation reporting plan

adopted pursuant to Rule 19d–1(c)(2) is

intended to be limited to rules which

relate to areas that can be adjudicated

quickly and objectively.

The Commission believes that the

rules proposed to be deemed minor rule

violations under the Exchange’s Plan

meet this criteria for the same reasons

as noted above with regard to the rules

proposed for inclusion in its

Procedure.39 Violations of these rules

are amenable to quick and objective

determinations of compliance. Efficient

and equitable enforcement of violations

of these CHX rules should not entail the

complicated factual and interpretive

inquiries associated with more

sophisticated Exchange disciplinary

actions. Therefore, it is reasonable for

these rules to be included in such an

abbreviated periodic reporting plan.40 In

addition, the Commission finds that the

format proposed by the Exchange to

make its quarterly report of violations to

the Commission under the Plan is

identical, in all material respects, to the

minor rule violation reporting plans

approved by the Commission for use by

other exchanges, and thus in

compliance with the requirements of

Rule 19d–1(c)(2) under the Act.

V. Conclusion

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 41 and Rule

19d–1(c)(2) thereunder, that the

proposed rule change (SR–CHX–95–25)

and minor rule violation reporting plan

of the Exchange is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.42

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14177 Filed 6–5 –96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28923

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2852;

Amendment #3]

Illinois; Declaration of Disaster Loan

Area

In accordance with a notice from the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

dated May 23, 1996, the abovenumbered Declaration is hereby

amended to include Gallatin and

Wabash Counties in the State of Illinois

as a disaster area due to damages caused

by severe storms and flooding beginning

on April 28, 1996 and continuing

through May 17, 1996.

In addition, applications for economic

injury loans from small businesses

located in the contiguous counties of

Hardin in Illinois and Union in

Kentucky may be filed until the

specified date at the previously

designated location.

All other information remains the

same, i.e., the termination date for filing

applications for physical damage is July

5, 1996, and for loans for economic

injury the deadline is February 6, 1997.

The economic injury number for the

State of Kentucky is 891500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.)

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Bernard Kulik,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14173 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–96–27]

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 information in the summary is

intended to affect the legal status of any

petition or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before June 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. l, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone

(202) 267–3132.

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 June 3,

1996.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 28541

Petitioner: Mr. Isaac B. Weathers

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.109 (a) and (b)(3)

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

Mr. Weathers to conduct recurrent

flight training in Beechcraft Bonanza,

Baron, and Travel Air aircraft; and

recurrent flight training in simulated

instrument flight in Beechcraft Baron

and Travel Air aircraft, when those

aircraft are equipped with a

functioning throwover wheel in place

of functioning dual controls.

Docket No.: 28554

Petitioner: Phoenix Air Group, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.167(a)(2) and 135.223(a)(2)

Description of Relief Sought: To permit

the Phoenix Air Group, Inc.,

(Phoenix) to operate its aircraft in

instrument flight rules (IFR)

conditions without carrying enough

fuel to fly to an alternate airport by

allowing Phoenix to use

commissioned Department of Defense

instrument approach procedures,

provided certain minimum weather

conditions are met, in lieu of standard

instrument approach procedures

prescribed in part 97.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 28458

Petitioner: Gulfstream Aerospace

Corporation

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.571(e)(1)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the Gulfstream

Aerospace Corporation exemption

from the 4-pound bird strike

requirement of § 25.571(e)(1) from Vc

at sea level to 8,000 feet, in favor of

Vc at sea level or .85 Vc at 8,000 feet,

whichever is greater, for the

Gulfstream Model GV.

Grant, May 13, 1996, Exemption No.

6436

[FR Doc. 96–14266 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

To Use the Revenue From a Passenger

Facility Charge (PFC) at Chautauqua

County/Jamestown Airport,

Jamestown, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to use the revenue from a

PFC at Chautauqua County/Jamestown

Airport under the provisions of the

Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion

Act of 190 (Title IX of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990)

(Public Law 101–508) and Part 158 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR Part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Philip Brito, Manager New

York Airports District Office, 600 Old

Country Road, Room 446, Garden City,

New York, 11530.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Kenneth B.

Brentley, Manager of Airports for the

County of Chautauqua, New York, at the

following address: County of

Chautauqua, P.O. Box 51, Falconer, New

York 14733.