Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13823

4The proposal will not alter the compositional or

nomination criteria for the PCXE Board of Directors.

See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43608

(November 21, 2000), 65 FR 78822 (December 15,

2000) (Notice of File No. SR–PCX–00–25 proposing

to create a new electronic trading facility of the

PCXE called Archipelago Exchange).

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

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).

8See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

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

2 17 CFR 240.19B–4.

than twelve (12) directors, with the

Board of Directors currently

contemplated to consist initially of ten

(10) members. The authorized number

of Directors shall be as determined from

time to time by resolution of the Board

of Directors. At least fifty percent (50%)

of the Directors will be persons from the

public and will not be, or be affiliated

with, a broker or dealer in securities. At

least twenty (20%) of the Directors (but

no fewer than two (2) Directors) will be

nominees of the ETP/Equity ASAP

Nomination Committee, pursuant to

Rule 3 of the Corporation. An officer or

director of a facility of the Corporation

may serve on the Board of Directors.

The term of office of a Director shall not

be affected by any decrease in the

authorized number of Directors.

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

PCX 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. The PCX 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

Currently, the Board of Directors may

consist of not less than (10) or more

then twelve (12) directors. Currently the

Board of Directors consists of ten (10)

members. The authorized number of

Directors is determined from time to

time by resolution of the Board of

Directors. At least fifty percent (50%) of

the Directors are persons from the

public (i.e., not a broker or dealer in

securities or affiliate thereof). At least

twenty (20%) of the Directors (but no

fewer than two (2) Directors) will be

nominees of the ETP/Equity ASAP

Nomination Committee, pursuant to

Rule 3 of the Corporation.4

The Exchange and its wholly-owned

subsidiary, PCXE, propose to change

this PCXE Bylaw to permit an officer or

director of a facility of PCXE

(Corporation) to serve on the Board of

Directors of PCXE.

The PCX and PCXE have entered into

various agreements with Archipelago

Holding, L.L.C. (‘‘Archipelago’’ or

‘‘Company’’) under which Archipelago

Exchange, L.L.C. (‘‘Arca’’), a subsidiary

of Archipelago Holdings, L.L.C. would

operate Area as a facility of the PCXE.5

PCX, through PCXE, recently proposed

to create a new electronic trading

facility of the PCXE called Archipelago

Exchange. The proposed rule change

would permit an Archipelago member,

officer or director to serve on the Board

of Directors.

The proposed Bylaw amendment calls

for a designee of a ‘‘facility of the

Corporation’’ to provide flexibility.

Under the proposal, permitting a facility

designee to serve on the PCXE Board of

Directors would not decrease the

number of public members or number of

nominees of the ETP/Equity ASAP

Nomination Committee serving on the

Board.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and

furthers the objectives of section

6(b)(3),7 in particular, in that it is

consistent with the fair representation

principles set forth in the Act.8

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received from

Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments on the proposed

rule change were neither solicited nor

received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 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

90 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 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,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington DC 20549–0609. 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

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the PCX. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–PCX–01–03 and should be

submitted by March 28, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5544 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44021; File No. SR–PHLX–

01–14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

Relating to a Rebate for Certain Fees

Incurred in Connection with the

Exchange’s Payment for Order Flow

Fee Program

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 January

13824 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

3Currently, this fee is not applicable to the

following transactions: (1) Specialist-to-ROT; (2)

ROT-to-ROT; (3) specialist-to-firm; (4) ROT-to-firm;

(5) specialist-to-broker-dealer; and (6) ROT-tobroker-dealer. See Securities Exchange Act Release

Nos. 41377 (August 18, 2000), 65 FR 51889 (Aug.

25, 2000) (SR–Phlx–00–77); 43480 (Oct. 25, 2000),

65 FR 66275 (Nov. 3, 2000) (SR–Phlx–00–87); and

43481 (Oct. 25, 2000), 65 FR 66277 (Nov. 3, 2000)

(SR–Phlx–00–88, SR–Phlx–00–89).

4A Top 120 Option is defined as one of the 120

most actively traded equity options, in terms of

national trading volume, as reflected by the Options

Clearing Corporation. The Top 120 Options are

calculated every six months. The proposed fees

does not apply to index or currency options.

5For example, if a total invoiced amount for a

Top 120 Option is $200,000 (composed of $120,000

received from the specialist; $25,000 received from

ROT #1; and $55,000 received from ROT #2) and

a specialist requests reimbursement in the amount

of $75,000, there would be $125,000 in unspent

funds. There would be a rebate of 62.5% ($125,000/

$200,000) distributed on a pro rata basis. Therefore,

the specialist would receive $75,000; ROT #1 would

receive $15,625; and ROT #2 would receive

$34,375.

6Late charges are assessed pursuant to Phlx Rule

50. The Phlx does not waive late fees for past due

amounts even if some portion of the fee is later

rebated.

7The Phlx will make pro-rata determinations for

amounts from August 2000 to October 2000 on a

month-by -month basis.

30, 2001 the Philadelphia Stock

Exchange, Inc. ( ‘‘Phlx’’ or the

‘‘Exchange’’ ) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission

( ‘‘Commission’’ ) the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items the Phlx has

prepared. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule changes

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Changes

The Phlx proposes to allow for a

debate of specified funds in connection

with its payment for order flow

program.

Effective August 1, 2000, the Phlx

imposed a marketing fee of $1.00 per

contract 3 on transactions by Phlx

specialists and Registered Options

Traders (ROTs) in the Top 120 Options

on the Phlx.4 The specialists make all

determinations concerning the amount

that is paid for orders and which order

flow providers receive the payments.

Some Phlx specialist units have made

payments to attract order flow and have

requested reimbursement for those

expenditures, but other specialist units

have not participated in the payment for

order flow program. As a consequence,

some proceeds raised by the imposition

of payment for order flow fees have

remained unspent. Accordingly, the

Phlx is instituting a payment for order

flow rebate program to handle the

unspent funds.

Pursuant to the rebate program, any

money that has been billed or collected

with respect to particular option symbol

but has not been spent will be credited

or returned according to the following

guidelines: (1) Within 10 days from the

date monthly bills are due, specialists

must submit their requests for

reimbursement; (2) the Phlx’s

accounting department will process the

reimbursement requests and determine

the amount of unspent funds for each

month; (3) any unspent refunds will be

returned to specialists and ROTs on a

pro rata basis, with rebates calculated as

a percentage of the unspent funds to the

payment for order flow invoiced

amounts,5 (4) rebate checks will be

given to specialists and ROTs

approximately ten days after the

reimbursement cutoff request date (20

days after monthly bills are due); and (5)

credits will be calculated against any

amounts that have been billed, but not

collected. Late charges will continue to

accrue on any amounts that remain

outstanding, although based upon a

lower ‘‘principal’’ amount after the

rebates have been calculated.6

The Exchange intends to begin

implementing this program by

requesting that reimbursement requests

for the months of August, September,

and October be received by January 30,

2001, with rebates processed ten days

thereafter.7 Reimbursement requests for

the month of November should be

received by February 15, 2001, with

rebates processed ten days thereafter.

Post-November reimbursement requests

will be processed according to the

guidelines stated above.

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

Phlx 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. 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

The Phlx’s payment for order flow

program was designed to generate a

source of funds that specialists may use

to attract order flow in the Top 120

Options. The Phlx believed that it was

necessary for it to adopt this type of fee

in order to maintain and enhance its

competitive position. The purpose of

the proposed rule change is to provide

a rebate to specialists and ROTs of

specified funds in connection with the

Phlx’s payment for order flow program.

Since the implementation of the

payment for order flow fee on August 1,

2000, some funds have been billed or

collected but not disbursed to order

flow providers. Some order flow

providers may maintain policies not to

accept payment for order flow funds.

The Phlx believes that holding unspent

payment for order flow funds is

inefficient and does not serve the best

interests of the specialists and ROTs.

The Phlx believes that returning the

funds to the specialists and ROTs in a

timely manner may allow them to use

the funds in a more efficient manner,

such as by increasing liquidity on the

trading floor or investing the capital in

their firms.

The Phlx believes that its proposal is

consistent with section 6(b) of the Act

in general, and furthers the objectives of

sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) in particular.

The Phlx believes that, because the

specialists and ROTs will receive a

rebate of the funds that were billed or

collected but remain unspent, the rebate

program will enable an equitable

allocation of reasonable fees among the

Phlx’s members. Moreover, the Phlx

believes that the payment for order flow

rebate program, as described above,

should promote just and equitable

principles of trade, remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market,

and protect investors and the public

interest by allowing a more efficient use

of funds, which may result in increased

liquidity, tighter markets, and more

competition among Exchange members.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Phlx does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

inappropriate burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received from

Members, Participants, or Others

The Phlx did not solicit any written

comments on the proposed rule change.

The Phlx has received written

comments addressed generally to its

payment for order flow program. A

letter from Merrill G. Davidoff of Berger

& Montague, P.C., on behalf of the

Independent Traders Association, Inc.

and a letter from S.C. Hamilton stated

that the payment for order flow program

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13825

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

is in violation of Phlx by-laws. Mr.

Davidoff’s letter also expressed concerns

over the implementation of the program.

A letter from Edward Frank of Gateway

Partners LLC requested an amendment

to the program to allow for rebates in

certain situations. A letter from the

Independent Traders Association, Inc.,

stated concerns about the payment for

order flow program and how the Phlx is

implementing the program. A handout

that the Independent Traders

Association, Inc., distributed to the

Board of Governors at its regular board

meeting on January 24, 2001,

summarized its concerns and proposed

changes to the program. Although a

number of the letters have disagreed

with the payment for order flow

program, the Phlx believes that it was

necessary to adopt the program to

remain competitive. None of the letters

addressed the terms of the rebate

program that is the subject of this filing.

All of the letters are available for

inspection at the principal offices of the

Phlx and at the Commission.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The Phlx has designated the foregoing

proposed rule change as a fee change

pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the

Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder.

Accordingly, the proposal has become

immediately effective upon filing with

the Commission. At any time within 60

days of the filing of the proposed rule

change, the Commission may summarily

abrogate the rule change if it appears to

the Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written data, views,

and arguments concerning the

foregoing, including whether the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the Act. Persons making written

submissions should file six copies

thereof with the Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–

0609. Copies of the submissions, 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 changes 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

Room. Copies of such filings will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal offices of the Phlx. All

submissions should refer to File Nos.

SR–Phlx–01–14 and should be

submitted by March 28, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.8

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5542 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3595]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘A

Breeze from the Gardens of Persia:

New Art from Iran’’

AGENCY: United States Department of

State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

following determinations: Pursuant to

the authority vested in me by the Act of

October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat.

2681 et seq.], Delegation of Authority

No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR

56014], and Delegation of Authority No.

236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920],

as amended, I hereby determine that the

objects to be included in the exhibit, ‘‘A

Breeze from the Gardens of Persia: New

Art from Iran,’’ imported from abroad

for the temporary exhibition without

profit within the United States, are of

cultural significance. These objects will

be imported pursuant to loan

agreements with foreign lenders. I also

determine that the temporary exhibition

or display of the exhibit objects at the

Meridian International Center,

Washington, DC, from on or about April

26, 2001, to on or about July 14, 2001;

Queens Library Gallery, Jamaica, NY,

from on or about September 7, 2001, to

on or about November 9, 2001;

ArtCentre of Plano, Plano, TX, from on

or about November 19, 2001, to on or

about January 11, 2002, and at other

U.S. venues yet to be determined, is in

the national interest. The exhibition is

expected to end by August 31, 2003.

Public Notice of these determinations is

ordered to be published in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, including a list of

exhibit objects, contact Julianne

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of

State (telephone: 202/619–6529). The

address is U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW, Room 700,

Washington, DC 20547–0001.

Dated: March 1, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 01–5554 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7918]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt 55 individuals from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10).

DATES: Effective March 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the vision

exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra

Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck

Standards and Operations, (202) 366–

2987; for information about legal issues

related to this notice, Ms. Elaine Walls,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–

1394; FMCSA, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office

hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,

e.t., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

You may see all the comments online

through the Document Management

System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.

Background

Sixty-five individuals petitioned the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA) for an

exemption from the vision requirement

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies

to drivers of commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs) in interstate commerce. They

are: Henry Ammons Jr., Wayne A.

Anderson, Glenn A. Babcock Jr., Bobby

J. Beall, Robert D. Bonner, James F.