30930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices

Article 23 of the WTO Dispute

Settlement Understanding (DSU). If, at

the conclusion of dispute settlement

proceedings, the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body finds that Japanese

government acts, policies or practices

violate, or are inconsistent with, the

provisions of, or otherwise deny

benefits accruing to the United States

under, any of the WTO agreements, and,

unless Japan is taking satisfactory

measures to grant the rights of the

United States under the WTO

agreements, has agreed to eliminate or

phase out the affected act, policy or

practice, or agreed to an imminent

satisfactory solution to the burden or

restriction on U.S. commerce, or

provided satisfactory compensatory

trade benefits, the United States shall

take action under section 301 in

accordance with the DSU.

(2)(a) The United States will request

consultations immediately with the

Government of Japan pursuant to

arrangements for consultations on

restrictive business practices adopted by

the GATT Contracting Parties in 1960

and carried forward into the WTO; (b)

in light of Prime Minister Hashimoto’s

statements of his personal commitment

and the series of commitments made by

the Government of Japan under the

Structural Impediments Initiative and

the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Japan

Framework for a New Economic

Partnership to strengthen the Japan Fair

Trade Commission (JFTC) and

enforcement of Japan’s competition

laws, the United States (i) is requesting

that Kodak provide information for

submission to the JFTC concerning

certain anticompetitive practices in the

Japanese consumer photographic

materials market, and (ii) will provide

information to the JFTC to enforce

competition laws in the consumer

photographic materials markets; (c) the

Department of Justice will seek to

cooperate with the JFTC in its review of

evidence of anticompetitive practices in

the Japanese market and in

consideration of remedial actions, as

appropriate, and USTR will consult

with the Department of Justice in

assessing efforts of the JFTC to enforce

competition laws in Japan’s

photographic materials market; and (d)

the United States will study the extent

to which Japan’s market structure for

consumer photographic materials

distorts competition or causes economic

harm in the United States and in third

markets and consider any appropriate

responses.

At the appropriate time, based on

developments in these consultations

and proceedings, the USTR will

consider what further action needs to be

taken to ensure that barriers in the

Japanese consumer photographic

materials sector are eliminated.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 96–15436 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request for Review of a

Currently Approved Information

Collection: RI 38–45

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice

announces that the Office of Personnel

Management has submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget a request for

extension of a currently approved

information collection, RI 38–45, We

Need the Social Security Number of the

Person Named Below, is used by the

Civil Service Retirement System and the

Federal Employees Retirement System

to identify the records of individuals

with similar or the same names. It is

also needed to report payments to the

Internal Revenue Service.

We estimate 3,000 RI 38–45 forms are

completed annually. Each form takes

approximately 5 minutes to complete.

The annual estimated burden is 250

hours.

For copies of this proposal, contact

Jim Farron on (202) 418–3208, or E-mail

to jimfarron@mail.opm.gov

DATES: Comments on this proposal

should be received on or before July 18,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments

to—

Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, Operations

Support Division, Retirement and

Insurance Service, U.S. Office of

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street,

NW, Room 3349, Washington, DC

20415

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer,

Office of Information & Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management &

Budget, New Executive Office

Building, NW., Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION—CONTACT:

Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management

Services Division, (202) 606–0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 96–15404 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Docket No. A96–18; Order No. 1116]

Trevett, Maine 04571 (Arthur W. Ridlon,

Petitioner); Notice and Order

Accepting Appeal and Establishing

Procedural Schedule Under 39 U.S.C.

404(b)(5)

Issued: June 12, 1996.

Docket Number: A96–18.

Name of Affected Post Office: Trevett,

Maine 04571.

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Arthur W.

Ridlon.

Type of Determination: Closing.

Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: June

10, 1996.

Categories of Issues Apparently

Raised:

1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(C)].

2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(A)].

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the

Commission may find that the Postal

Service’s determination disposes of one

or more of those issues.

The Postal Reorganization Act

requires that the Commission issue its

decision within 120 days from the date

this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C.

404(b)(5)). In the interest of expedition,

in light of the 120-day decision

schedule, the Commission may request

the Postal Service to submit memoranda

of law on any appropriate issue. If

requested, such memoranda will be due

20 days from the issuance of the request

and the Postal Service shall serve a copy

of its memoranda on the petitioners.

The Postal Service may incorporate by

reference in its briefs or motions, any

arguments presented in memoranda it

previously filed in this docket. If

necessary, the Commission also may ask

petitioners or the Postal Service for

more information.

The Commission orders:

(a) The Postal Service shall file the

record in this appeal by June 25, 1996.

(b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate

Commission shall publish this Notice

and Order and Procedural Schedule in

the Federal Register.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 / Notices 30931

1 15 U.S.C. 78S(B)(1) (1988).

2The Commission has modified the text of the

statements DTC submitted.

3For a complete discussion of MCC’s and

Midwest Securities Trust Company’s (‘‘MSTC’’)

withdrawal from the clearing and depository

business, refer to Securities Exchange Act Release

No. 36684 (January 5, 1996), 61 FR 1195 [File Nos.

SR–CHX–95–27, SR–DTC–95–22, SR–MCC–95–04,

SR–MSTC–95–10, SR–NSCC–95–15] (order

approving MCC’s and MSTC’s withdrawal from the

clearance and settlement, securities depository, and

branch receive businesses).

4A more detailed description of these services is

set forth in Section II of DTC’s Drop Service

Agreement which describes the terms under which

DTC’s service will be provided. The Drop Service

Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 to DTC’s

proposed rule change and is available through DTC

or through the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. All transfer agents are required to execute

the Drop Service Agreement in order to use DTC’s

Drop Service.

By the Commission.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

June 10, 1996—Filing of Appeal letter

June 12, 1996—Commission Notice and

Order of Filing of Appeal

July 5, 1996—Last day of filing of petitions

to intervene [see 39 C.F.R. § 3001.111(b)]

July 15, 1996—Petitioner’s Participant

Statement or Initial Brief [see 39 C.F.R.

§ 3001.115 (a) and (b)]

August 5, 1996—Postal Service’s Answering

Brief [see 39 C.F.R. § 3001.115(c)]

August 20, 1996—Petitioner’s Reply Brief

should Petitioner choose to file one [see 39

C.F.R. § 3001.115(d)]

August 27, 1996—Deadline for motions by

any party requesting oral argument. The

Commission will schedule oral argument

only when it is a necessary addition to the

written filings [see 39 C.F.R. § 3001.116]

October 8, 1996—Expiration of the

Commission’s 120-day decisional schedule

[see 39 U.S.C. § 404(b)(5)]

[FR Doc. 96–15385 Filed 6–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34– 37303; File No. SR–DTC–

96–09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The

Depository Trust Company; Notice of

Filing of a Proposed Rule Change

Relating to the Establishment of

Procedures to Establish a Drop

Window Service.

June 11, 1996

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

April 25, 1996, The Depository Trust

Company (‘‘DTC’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change (File No. SR–DTC–96–09) 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.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

DTC is filing a proposed rule change

that establishes procedures for a transfer

agent drop service (‘‘Drop Service’’).

The Drop Service will provide transfer

agents located outside of New York City

with a central location within the

Borough of Manhattan to receive and

deliver securities.

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.2

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

DTC proposes to offer a Drop Service

in order to provide transfer agents

located outside of New York City with

a central location within Manhattan for

the receipt of securities from banks,

broker-dealers, depositories, and

shareholders. DTC’s Drop Service will

enable transfer agents to comply with

New York Stock Exchange Rule 496 and

American Stock Exchange Rule 891.

These rules require a transfer agent

seeking qualification as a transfer agent

for securities listed on the respective

exchanges to maintain an office

acceptable to the exchange and the

issuer located south of Chambers Street

in the Borough of Manhattan, City of

New York to receive and deliver

securities.

In the past, some transfer agents

located outside of New York City

complied with these rules by using a

drop service offered by the New York

office of the Midwest Clearing

Corporation (‘‘MCC’’). However, in 1996

MCC withdrew from the clearing

business and no longer offers a drop

service.3 DTC proposes to offer the DTC

Drop Service to replace the drop facility

offered by MCC and to ensure

continuity of service to transfer agents.

In connection with the Drop Service,

DTC will provide ancillary services to

transfer agents such as the inspection of

securities, maintenance of records

regarding the receipt and delivery of

securities, facilitation of rush transfers,

cancellation of certificates, and advice

regarding legal and regular transfer

requirements.4

DTC believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with the

requirements of Section 17A of the Act

because it promotes efficiencies in the

prompt and accurate clearance and

settlement of securities transactions,

specifically the transfer of record

ownership. DTC estimates that 80% of

securities delivered to transfer agents

through a drop service originate as DTC

deposits, withdrawals by transfer, and

denomination changes. By establishing

a central drop facility at DTC,

certificates will be sent directly to a

transfer agent from DTC, rather than

from DTC to a separate drop location in

Manhattan and ultimately to the transfer

agent. Therefore, DTC’s Drop Service

will promote efficiencies in the transfer

of record ownership. DTC’s Drop

Service also will reduce the expenses

associated with the transfer of record

ownership by centralizing the recording

and filming of securities received by

transfer agents. Moreover, DTC believes

the Drop Service will foster cooperation

and coordination between DTC and

other entities engaged in the clearance

and settlement of securities

transactions.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

DTC perceives no impact on

competition by reason of the proposed

rule change.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received from

Members, Participants or Others

DTC has not solicited or received

comment on the 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 DTC consents, the

Commission will: