30268 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3A zero plus tick is a price equal to the last sale

where the last preceding transaction at a different

price was at a lower price. Conversely, a zero minus

tick is a price equal to the last sale where the last

preceding transaction at a different price was at a

higher price.

4Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36014 (July

21, 1995), 60 FR 38870. The Commission originally

approved the pilot program in Securities Exchange

Act Release No. 33957 (Apr. 22, 1994), 59 FR 22188

(‘‘1994 Approval Order’’). On April 21, 1995, the

Commission granted a three month extension to the

pilot program, ending on July 21, 1995. Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 35635 (Apr. 21, 1995), 60

FR 20780.

5 15 U.S.C. 78f.

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

7 15 U.S.C. 78k(b).

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

[Release No. 34–37288; File No. SR–Amex–

96–16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the American Stock Exchange, Inc.

Relating to Amendments to Rule 170

Pertaining to Specialists’ Liquidating

Transactions

June 7, 1996.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on April 30,

1996, the American Stock Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with

the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I and II 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 Amex requests permanent

approval of a pilot program that amends

Exchange Rule 170 to permit a specialist

to effect a liquidating transaction on a

zero minus tick, in the case of a ‘‘long’’

position, or zero plus tick, when

covering a ‘‘short’’ position, without

Floor Official approval.3 The pilot

program also amends Exchange Rule

170 to set forth the affirmative action

that specialists are required to take

subsequent to effecting various types of

liquidating transactions.

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 III 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

On July 21, 1995, the Commission

approved a one-year extension of a pilot

program that amends Exchange Rule

170 to permit a specialist to effect a

liquidating transaction on a zero minus

tick, in the case of a ‘‘long’’ position, or

a zero plus tick, when covering a

‘‘short’’ position, without Floor Official

approval.4 The amendments also set

forth the affirmative action that

specialists are required to take

subsequent to effecting various types of

liquidating transactions.

During the course of the pilot

program, the Exchange has monitored

compliance with the requirements of the

Rule, and the Amex’s findings in this

regard have been forwarded to the

Commission under separate cover. The

Exchange believes the amendments

have provided specialists with

flexibility in liquidating specialty stock

positions in order to facilitate their

ability to maintain fair and orderly

markets, particularly during unusual

market conditions. In addition, the

specialist’s concomitant obligation to

participate as dealer on the opposite

side of the market after a liquidating

transaction has been strengthened. The

Exchange is therefore proposing

approval of the amendments to

Exchange Rule 170.

2. Statutory Basis

The proposed rule change is

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 5

in general and furthers the objectives of

Section 6(b)(5) 6 in particular in that it

is designed to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market,

and, in general, protect investors and

the public interest. The proposed rule

change also is consistent with Section

11(b) of the Act 7 which allows

exchanges to promulgate rules relating

to specialists in order to maintain fair

and orderly markets.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The proposed rule change will impose

no 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 solicited

or received with respect to the proposed

rule change.

III. 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 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, DC 20549. Copies of such

filing also will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the Amex. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–Amex–96–

16 and should be submitted by July 5,

1996.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.8

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15112 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37294; File No. SR–

MBSCC–96–01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MBS

Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing

of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify

Participants Fund Deposit

Requirements

June 10, 1996.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

March 8, 1996, MBS Clearing
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices 30269

2Letters from Anthony H. Davidson, MBSCC, to

Christine Sibille, Division of Market Regulation

(‘‘Division’’), Commission (March 18, 1996) and to

Mark Steffensen, Division, Commission (May 30,

1996).

3The Commission has modified the text of the

summaries prepared by MBSCC.

4The purpose of the daily margin requirement

(‘‘MMD’’) is to ensure that a participant’s open

obligations to MBSCC will be satisfied in the event

the participant is unable to meet such obligations.

MMD is derived from a formula which assesses

various factors including the type of position held

and marked-to-market value fluctuations. The

purpose of the minimum market margin deposit

(‘‘3MD’’) is to provide additional assurances that

each participant’s fund contributions will be

adequate to satisfy all open commitments recorded

with MBSCC. Currently, the deposit required to

satisfy this component of the participant fund is

$250,000 per participant. The proposed rule change

will not affect the requirements of MBSCC

participants with regard to the MMD and 3MD

components of the participant’s fund.

5Notwithstanding the purposes of the basic

deposit, MMD, and 3MD components of the

participants fund, MBSCC is not limited in its

application of participant fund proceeds. Rather,

MBSCC can utilize the total participants fund to

satisfy a participant’s obligations irrespective of the

type of default.

6MBSCC determined that its participants on

average maintain two accounts at MBSCC.

Presently, the monthly maintenance fee per account

is $350 or $700 for two accounts. MBSCC based the

minimum deposit amount of $1,000 upon these

averages and other participant usage data.

7 15 U.S.C. § 78q–1 (1988). 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12) (1995)

Corporation (‘‘MBSCC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–MBSCC–96–01)

and amended such filing on March 25,

and May 30, 1996,2 as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which items

have been prepared primarily by

MBSCC. 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 proposed rule change will revise

MBSCC’s rules to modify MBSCC

participants’ deposit requirements to the

participants fund.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In Its filing with the Commission,

MBSCC included statements concerning

the purpose of and basic 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. MBSCC has prepared

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

and (C) below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.3

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

The MBSCC participant fund is

composed of a basic deposit, a

minimum market margin deposit, and a

daily margin requirement.4 The basic

deposit component is intended to

ensure that a participant’s obligations to

MBSCC for services will be satisfied if

the participant is unable to meet such

obligations.5 Currently, the basic

deposit component is $10,000, which

must be in cash for each account

maintained by a participant. The

proposed rule change will require a

minimum deposit of $1,000 for each

participant regardless of the number of

accounts maintained.6 If a participant’s

average monthly services bill, as

determined by MBSCC on a semiannual

basis, exceeds $1,000, the participant’s

minimum deposit amount will be the

amount of such average monthly

services bill up to a maximum amount

of $10,000 per account maintained by

such participant. MBSCC believes that

as a result of the proposed rule change,

participants fund deposits will reflect

more accurately each participant’s

actual services billing.

MBSCC believes that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act 7

and the rules and regulations

thereunder because it provides for the

equitable allocation of dues, fees, and

other charges among MBSCC’s

participants.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

MBSCC does not believe that the

proposed rule change will have an

impact on 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

No written comments relating to the

proposed rule change have solicited or

received. MBSCC will notify the

Commission of any written comments

received by MBSCC.

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 MBSCC 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 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

Room, 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 MBSCC. All submissions

should refer to the file number SR–

MBSCC–96–01 and should be submitted

by July 5, 1996.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.8

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15180 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37291; File No. SR–NASD–

96–21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Relating to Mandatory

Electronic Filing of Forms U–4, U–5

and BD

June 7, 1996.

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 June 7, 1996, the

National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)