Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Public Health Service (PHS) Operating Division (OPDIV) Heads the service fellowships related authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Sections 207 and 208 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 209 and 210, and under Title 42 CFR, Subpart B, Part 61—Service Fellowships.

This delegation supersedes the delegation of authority memorandum titled, “Delegation of Authority—Service Fellowships,” to the PHS Agency Heads from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Management Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, dated January 8, 1993.

This delegation becomes effective upon date of signature. Also, I hereby ratify and affirm the actions taken by you or your subordinates, which involved the exercise of authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this delegation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

1. Silicosis, No Mas!: Evaluation of Materials Used for Outreach to Hispanic Construction Workers—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Over 14,000 workers in the U.S. have died from silicosis and hundreds more add to the death toll each year. Silicosis is the third leading cause of death attributed to occupational diseases in the U.S. In the state of Texas, 300 cases of silicosis and workers exposed to silica were reported between 1990 and 1997. Among these cases, construction was one of the most frequently reported industries. Silicosis was diagnosed in workers as young as 22 years of age, and one third of the cases were found among Hispanic workers, most of whom were diagnosed with silicosis in their thirties.

Despite the alarming number of reports, few attempts have been made to educate construction workers in Texas, particularly workers of Hispanic/Latino decent. An evaluation of the outreach activities conducted during the 1996 National Campaign to Eliminate Silicosis and the Special Emphasis Program (SEP) for silicosis indicated that no effort was undertaken to meet the needs of Hispanic workers. In both events, educational outreach was directed at the mainstream industry, trade associations, employers, and labor unions. Yet, while some educational materials were directly translated into Spanish, no special efforts were directed at Hispanic workers in the course of the campaign nor in the SEP. In addition, the results of 11 focus groups recently conducted in Texas indicated that most Hispanic workers were unaware of silicosis and most knew little about the cause and health effects of silicosis. Barriers to silicosis prevention raised by the focus group participants included lack of knowledge about prevention and lack of proper protective equipment provided by their employers. While most workers in the focus groups could read either Spanish or English, there were individuals who could not read either language. Hence, other mediums of communication, such as audio or video tapes, were recommended to reach the workers.

The goal of the overall project is to increase awareness of and information about the nature, extent, and seriousness of silica exposure, and to increase the use of appropriate engineering controls and respiratory protection among construction workers in Texas. A culturally and linguistically relevant silicosis education and prevention program targeting construction workers will be developed, implemented, and evaluated. The goal of the evaluation is to determine if culturally tailored health messages are more effective than non-culturally tailored health messages in promoting changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Information and data obtained from this evaluation will help direct future outreach efforts in silicosis prevention among the Hispanic population. In addition, results from this study will be used to further current understanding of the effects of cultural values in the design of safety and health messages, thereby helping future development of culturally and linguistically appropriate occupational safety and health messages tailored for the Hispanic population.

The total annual burden hours are 200.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6). Title 5 U.S.C., amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation of other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given to the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below.

Rule 17f-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) is entitled: “Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities Exchanges.” Rule 17f-1 provides that any registered management investment company (“fund”) that wishes to place its assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member may do so only under a written contract that must be ratified initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's board of directors. The written contract also must contain certain specified provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent public accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the exchange member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The rule requires the written contract and the certificate of each examination to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.

Commission staff estimates that approximately five funds maintain their assets with a national securities exchange member. 1 The annual burden of the rule's requirements is estimated to be approximately 4.5 hours for each of these funds. 2 Commission staff estimates the total annual burden for all funds is 22.5 hours.

Compliance with the collection of information required by rule 17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange. Responses will not be kept confidential. Form N-17f-1 is entitled: “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities Exchanges.” Form N-17f-1 is the cover sheet for accountant examination certificates filed under rule 17f-1 of the Act. Rule 17f-1 requires the accountant's certificate of each examination be attached to Form N-17f-1 and transmitted to the Commission promptly after each examination. The form facilities the filing of the accountant's certificate, and increases the accessibility of the certificate to both Commission's staff and interested investors.

Commission staff estimates that approximately five funds maintain their assets with a national securities exchange member. The annual burden of the rule's requirements is estimated to be approximately 27 minutes for each of these funds. 3 The total annual burden for all funds is therefore estimated to be 2.25 burden hours.

Compliance with the collection of information required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member.

Rule 17f-2 under the Act is entitled: “Custody of Investments by Registered Management Investment Company.” Rule 17f-2 establishes safeguards for arrangements in which a registered management investment company is deemed to maintain custody of its own assets, such as when the fund maintains its assets in a facility that provides safekeeping but not custodial services. The rule includes several recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The fund's directors must prepare a resolution designating not more than five fund officers or responsible employees who may have access to the fund's assets. The designated access persons (two or more of whom must act jointly when handling fund assets) must prepare a written notation providing certain information about each deposit or withdrawal of fund assets, and must transmit the notation to another officer or director designated by the directors. Independent public accounts must verify the fund's assets at least three times a year, and two of the examinations must be unscheduled.

The requirement that directors designate access persons is intended to ensure that directors evaluate the trustworthiness of insiders who handle fund assets. The requirements that access persons act jointly in handling fund assets, prepare a written notation of each transaction, and transmit the notation to another designated person are intended to reduce the risk of misappropriation of fund assets by access persons, and to ensure that adequate records are prepared, reviewed by a responsible third person, and available for examination by the Commission. The requirement that auditors verify fund assets without notice twice each year is intended to provide an additional deterrent to the misappropiation of fund assets and to detect any irregulatirites.

Commission staff estimates that approximately 204 funds rely upon the rule (and that each fund offers an average of two separate series or portfolios subject to the rule)  4 Commission staff estimates that each fund spends approximately 2 hours annually in drafting resolutions by directors, 24 hours annually in preparing transaction notations, and 100 hours annually assisting independent public accountants perform unscheduled verifications of assets. 5 The total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements thus is estimated to be 25,704 hours. This represents an increase of 10,844 hours from a prior estimate of 13,860 hours, based on an increase in the number of funds relying on the rule from 110 to 204 funds.

Form N-17f-2 is entitled “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.” Form N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates filed under rule 17f-2 of the Act by registered management investment companies maintaining custody of securities or other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the accountant's examination certificates. The use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring that the certificates are filed under the proper SEC file number and the correct name of a fund.

Commission staff estimates that approximately 204 funds rely on rule 17f-2, and therefore, file Form N-17f-2 with the Commission. A fund relying on rule 17f-2 must file the form with the Commission at least three times a year. Commission staff estimates that each fund spends approximately nine minutes (0.15 hours) preparing each response on Form N-17f-2  6 Therefore, the total annual burden of Form N-17f-2's annual paperwork requirements is estimated to be approximately 92 hours, 7 an increase of 72 hours from the prior estimate of 20 hours. The increase in the annual hour burden is primarily attributable to the increase in the number of respondents from 130 funds to 204 funds. 8

Complying with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory for those funds that maintain custody of their own assets. The information provided to the Commission by the fund's independent public accounts about each verification of the fund's assets will not be kept confidential.

The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

Allegheny Energy, Inc., (“Allegheny”), a registered holding company, Allegheny Energy Service Company (“AESC”), a service subsidiary of Allegheny, The Potomac Edison Company (“Potomac Edison”), a wholly owned electric public utility subsidiary of Allegheny, all located at 10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, a wholly owned nonutility subsidiary of Allegheny located at 10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, a wholly owned nonutility subsidiary of Allegheny located at R.R. 12, P.O. Box 1000, Roseytown, Pennsylvania 15601 (“Genco” and collectively, “Applicants”), have filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12(b), 12(c), 12(d), and 13(b) of the Act, and rules 43, 44, 45, 46, 54, 90 and 91 under the Act.

Potomac Edison, subject to obtaining the requisite regulatory approvals, intends to leave the generating business entirely. To accomplish this, Applicants request authority for Potomac Edison to transfer most of its electric generating business to Genco, which was organized to compete in deregulated, competitive electricity generation markets. Specifically, Applicants request authority for Potomac Edison to transfer to Genco, at net book value, Potomac Edison's undivided ownership interests in certain jointly held and certain wholly owned generating facilities and related fixed assets (“Generating Assets”), in certain current assets related to the Generating Assets (“Related Assets”), and other related interests (“Other Interests”) each of which is more particularly described below. In addition, Applicants request authority for Potomac Edison to transfer and for Genco to assume certain net liabilities and debt associated with the Generation Assets and Related Assets (“Related Liabilities”). As discussed below, Applicants also request authority for Potomac Edison to transfer its undivided ownership interests in certain hydroelectric generating stations located in Virginia (“Virginia Hydros”) to a subsidiary it proposes to organize, PE VA Hydro, LLC (“PE VA Hydro”).

The Generating Assets consist of the undivided ownership interests in the following generating facilities: a 25% interest in the Fort Martin Power station located in Maidsville, West Virginia; a 33% interest in the Albright Power Station located in Albright, West Virginia; a 32.76% interest in the Harrison Power Station located in Shinnston, West Virginia; a 20% interest in the Hatfield's Ferry Power Station located in Masontown, Pennsylvania; a 30% interest in the Pleasants Power Station, located in Saint Mary's, West Virginia; a 100% interest in the R. Paul Smith Station and R. Paul Smith Ash Basin, both located in Williamsport, Maryland; and a 100% interest in the Millville, Dam #4 and Dam #5 hydro stations located in West Virginia. The Generating Assets also consist of step-up transformers and ancillary transmission and distribution equipment, production equipment, buffers and rights of way, and other equipment that connect the Generating Assets to the transmission grid. Applicants project that the total net book value of the Generating Assets will be approximately $448.4 million as of June 30, 2000. Potomac Edison also intends to transfer fuel, supplies, and other inventory (“Inventory”) to Genco through intermediate subsidiaries more particularly described below. 1

The Related Assets consist of current assets, deferred charges, cash, temporary cash investments, and an undivided 28% ownership interest in Allegheny Generating Company (“ACC”). 2 Applicants project that the net book value of the Related Assets will be approximately $57.9 million as of June 30, 2000. The Other Interests consist of an undivided 2% ownership interest in Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (“OVEC”), a public utility, and Potomac Edison's rights and obligations under four agreements regarding the operation of four of the generating facilities included as Generating Assets.

The Related Liabilities consist of accounts payables, accrued taxes, tax deferrals, pollution control bonds, and other deferred credits related to the Generating Assets. Applicants project that the book value of the Related Liabilities will be approximately $215.3 million as of July 1, 2000. Applicants state that the Related Liabilities do not include Potomac Edison's first mortgage bonds. Applicants state that Potomac Edison expects to obtain a release from the lien of the first mortgage by pledging additional bondable property in an amount not to exceed the net book value of the Generating Assets, which could include remaining utility assets of Potomac Edison, and request authority to pledge those assets to obtain the described release.

The Virginia Hydros consist of Potomac Edison's undivided 100% ownership interests in the Luray, Newport, Shenandoah and Warren hydroelectric generating stations. According to Applicants, the net book value of the Virginia Hydros will be approximately $3.6 million as of June 30, 2000.

To accomplish the proposed transfers, Applicants request authority to form two limited liability corporations, PE Transferring Agent, LLC (“PE Transferring Agency”) and PE Genco, LLC (“PE Genco”). Potomac Edison would acquire the ownership interests in PE Transferring Agent in exchange for an initial cash contribution of $200,000, and PE Transferring Agent would acquire the membership interests in PE Genco for an initial cash contribution of $100,000, with the contributions to be in the form of collateralized government obligations.

Potomac Edison would then transfer its undivided ownership interests in the Generating Assets, Related Assets, Inventory and Other Interests to PE Transferring Agent. PE Transferring Agent would issue a promissory note to Potomac Edison in an amount equal to the sum of the net book values of the Generating Assets and Inventory (“Purchase Note”) in exchange for the transfer of these assets. In order to assure that PE Transferring agent has sufficient assets to cover the principal amount of the Purchase Note and its accrued interest, Potomac Edison would issue a non-interest bearing note to PE Transferring agent in an amount $20 million greater than the Purchase Note as a capital contribution. In addition, Potomac Edison would issue a non-interest bearing promissory note to PE Transferring Agency in an amount constituting the difference between the net book values of the Related Assets and the Related Liabilities.

PE Transferring Agent would in turn contribute the undivided ownership interests in the Generating Assets, Related Assets, Inventory and Other Interests to PE Genco, which would also assume the Related Liabilities. PE Transferring Agent would then dividend its membership interests in PE Genco to Potomac Edison, which would in turn dividend these membership interests to Allegheny, after which PE Genco would merge with Genco.

Applicants state that it is undesirable, at this time, for Genco to directly acquire the Virginia Hydros because the acquisition could subject Genco to regulation as a “public utility” under Virginia law. In order to facilitate Potomac Edison's exit from the generation business and Genco's entry into Virginia''s deregulated generation market, Applicants request authority for Potomac Edison to organize and acquire PE VA Hydro and for Potomac Edison to transfer the Virginia Hydros to PE VA Hydro. Applicants also request authority for Potomac Edison to dividend the membership interests in PE VA Hydro to Allegheny, and for Allegheny to contribute these interests in PE VA Hydro to Genco, making PE VA Hydro a wholly owned subsidiary of Genco.

In addition, Applicants request authority for Potomac Edison to render operating services with respect to the Generating Assets on behalf of Genco, and to render operating services with respect to the Virginia Hydros on behalf of PE VA Hydro, until Genco and PE VA Hydro obtain the necessary permits and licenses to operate the Generating Assets and the Virginia Hydros, respectively. These services will be rendered at cost, in accordance with rules 90 and 91 under the Act. Further, Applicants request authority for AE Units 1 and 2, LLC (“AEU”), a public utility subsidiary of Allegheny, to merge with Genco in exchange for Genco assuming the former company's outstanding debt. 3

Reunion Industries, Inc. (“Company”) has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its Common Stock, $.01 par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”).

Following the completion of its merger with Chatwins Group, Inc., on March 16, 2000, the Company, whose Security has been listed on the PCX, additionally effected its listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”). Trading in the Security on the Amex began on March 23, 2000. The Company's board of directors subsequently determined that the Security's limited trading volume on the PCX, compared with that on the Amex, did not justify the cost of maintaining such listing. On March 27, 2000, therefore, the Company's board passed a resolution authorizing the withdrawal of the Security from listing and registration on the PCX.

The PCX, having determined that the Company complied with the rules of the PCX governing the withdrawal of the Security from listing and registration, has indicated by letter to the Company that it shall not interpose any objection to the proposed withdrawal. The matter was considered and decided by the Equity Listings Committee of the PCX at a meeting held on May 2, 2000.

The Company's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing and registration on the PCX and shall have no effect upon the Security's continued listing and registration on the Amex under Section 12(b) of the Act. 3

Any interested persons may, on or before June 26, 2000, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the PCX and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

On September 2, 1999, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend its rules by adopting Commentary .02(d) and Commentary .04 to Amex Rule 950(d). 3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 15, 1999. 4 On November 1, 1999, May 26, 2000, and May 31, 2000, the Amex filed Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, to the proposal. 5 No comments were received regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves the portion of the proposal, as amended, adopting Commentary .04 to Amex Rule 950(d); this order also approves the portion of the proposal adopting Commentary .02(d) to Amex Rule 950(d) on a pilot basis until August 31, 2000. Finally, this order accelerates approval of Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and solicits comments from interested persons on those amendments.

Commentary .02 to Amex Rule 950(d) generally sets forth the procedures by which a floor broker representing the order of a public customer of a member firm may cross that order with a contra side order from the firm's proprietary account. In these circumstances, the firm is said to be “facilitating” the customer order, and the transaction is called a “facilitation cross.”

Under the current version of the rule, a floor broker seeking to execute a facilitation cross must first bring the transaction to the trading floor and request a market from the trading crowd. After receiving bids and offers from the crowd, the floor broker must propose a price at which to cross the order that improves upon the price provided by the crowd. However, before the floor broker can effect the cross, the market makers in the crowd are given the opportunity to take all or part of the transaction at the proposed price.

Under the current rule, if the crowd does not want to participate in the trade, the floor broker may proceed with the cross. If the crowd wants to take part of the order, however, the crowd has precedence and the floor broker may cross only that amount remaining after the crowd has taken its portion. If the crowd wants to take the entire order, the floor broker will not be able to cross any part of the order.

The proposed rule change would add new paragraph (d) to Commentary .02 to establish a 90-day pilot program that would apply to facilitation cross transactions in equity options. 6 The proposal would entitle the floor broker, under certain conditions, to cross a specified percentage of the customer order on behalf of the member firm before market makers in the crowd can participate in the transaction. This provision would generally apply to orders of 400 contracts or more. However, the Exchange would be permitted to establish a smaller eligible order size, so long as that size is not smaller than 50 contracts. 7

The percentage of the floor broker's guarantee would depend upon whether the price at which the order is ultimately traded is at the crowd's best bid or offer in response to the broker's initial request for a market, or at an improved price.

First, the floor broker would be granted a right under the proposal to execute a facilitation cross even at a price that does not improve upon the best bid or offer provided by the crowd in response to his initial request for a market. The proposed rule change provides that where the trade takes place at the market provided by the crowd, all public customer orders on the specialist's book or represented in the trading crowd at the time the market was established would need to be satisfied first. Once these public customer orders are satisfied, the floor broker would be entitled to facilitate 20% of the contracts remaining in the customer order. 8

The proposed rule change further provides that if the floor broker proposes the facilitation cross at a price between the best bid and offer provided by the crowd in response to his initial request for a market—and the crowd then wants to take part or all of the order at the improved price—the floor broker would be entitled to priority over the crowd to facilitate 40% of the contracts. 9 However, if the floor broker has proposed the cross at a price between the best bid and offer provided by the crowd in response to his initial request for a market, and the trading crowd subsequently improves the floor broker's price, and the facilitation cross is executed at that improved price, the floor broker would be entitled to priority to facilitate 20% of the contracts. 10

The proposed rule change also provides that if the facilitation transaction takes place at the specialist's quoted bid or offer, any participation allocated to the specialist pursuant to Amex trading floor practices  11 would apply only to the number of contracts remaining after all public customer orders have been filled and the member firm's crossing rights have been exercised. However, in no case could the total number of contracts guaranteed to the member firm and the specialist exceed 40% of the facilitation transaction. 12

The proposed rule change makes clear that if the facilitation transaction takes place at a price at which the specialist is not on parity with registered options traders in the crowd, the specialist would not be guaranteed any participation. The proposal also makes clear, however, that it is not intended to prohibit either a member firm or specialist from trading more than their percentage entitlements if the other members of the trading crowd do not choose to trade with the remaining portion of the facilitated order. 13

Proposed new Commentary .04 to Amex 950(d) states that it may be considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any member or person associated with a member, who has knowledge of all material terms and conditions of (1) an originating order  14 and a solicited order, (2) an order being facilitated, or (3) orders being crossed, the execution of which are imminent, to enter, based on such knowledge, an order to buy or sell an option of the same class as any option that is the subject of the order, or an order to buy or sell the security underlying such class, or an order to buy or sell any related instrument until either (1) all of the terms of the originating order  15 and any changes in the terms or conditions of the order of which the member or associated person has knowledge are disclosed to the trading crowd, or (2) the trade can no longer reasonably be considered imminent in view of the passage of time since the order was received. For purposes of proposed Amex Rule 950(d), Commentary .04, an order to buy or sell a “related instrument,” means, in reference to an index option, an order to buy or sell securities comprising 10% or more of the component securities in the index or an order to buy or sell a futures contract on an economically equivalent index.

The Amex stated that it seeks to codify and expand its policy prohibiting either a member or a person associated with a member from using non-public information for the member's or associated person's benefit by trading in the underlying stock or any closely related instrument. Specifically, proposed Commentary .04 is designed to prevent members and associated persons from using undisclosed information about imminent solicited, facilitated, or crossed options transactions to trade the relevant option or any closely related instrument in advance of persons represented in the trading crowd. The Amex believes that trading on the basis of undisclosed information could threaten the integrity of the auction market or disadvantage other market participants.

After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of the Act applicable to a national securities exchange, particularly those of Section 6(b)(5)  16 and Section 6(b)(8)  17 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. 18

The Commission believes that proposed new Commentary. 02(d) to Amex Rule 950(d) will enable the Amex to better compete with other options exchanges in attracting the order flow of broker-dealer firms seeking to facilitate customer orders, without adversely impacting the prices those orders receive.

The Commission finds that the Amex's proposal to grant participation rights, under certain conditions, to member firm seeking to execute facilitation crosses on the Exchange is reasonable. Currently, Amex market makers have priority rights for the full size of a customer order over the firm that brings a crossing transaction of the Amex floor, as long as the market makers are willing to trade at the proposed price.

While the proposal entitles the member firm to a specified percentage of a facilitation transaction when executed at the trading crowd's best bid or offer, it does not eliminate the crowd's ability to trade with a portion of the order proposed to be crossed, or even so substantially reduce that ability so as to raise serious concern that the proposal would reduce price competition by the crowd. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposal may contribute to better prices for crossing transactions. Specifically, it provides an incentive for upstairs firms to improve on the prices quoted by the crowd by offering these firms a greater participation in the trade when they better the crowd's price. In addition, market makers will always have an opportunity to improve the market and compete for a greater portion of the trade.

In evaluating the proposed rule change, the Commission considered, among other matters, whether the Amex's proposal to guarantee that a member firm could cross up to 40% of an order would reduce the incentive of crowds to compete for orders, and thus impair the price discovery mechanism of the Exchange's market.

It is recent approval of the application of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”) for registration as a national securities exchange, the Commission discussed the same concern with respect to the ISE's proposed “facilitation mechanism,” a system designed to effect a type of facilitation guarantee in an electronic context. The Commission wrote:

As described more fully above, proposed Commentary .04 restricts trading by a member or associated person who has knowledge of all of the material terms of a solicited order, an order being facilitated, or orders being crossed. The restriction does not apply however, if either (1) all of the terms of the originating order and any changes in the terms and conditions of the order of which the member or associated person has knowledge are disclosed to the trading crowd; or (2) the trade can no longer reasonably be considered imminent in view of the passage of time since the order was received.

According to the Amex, proposed Amex Rule 950(d), Commentary .04 is designed to prevent members and associated persons from using undisclosed information about imminent solicited, facilitated, or crossing transactions to trade the relevant option or any closely related instrument in advance of persons represented in the trading crowd.

The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Amex to prohibit, as inconsistent with just the equitable principles of trade, transactions by members or associated persons based on the knowledge of imminent undisclosed solicited, facilitated, or crossing transactions. The Commission believes that such trading could threaten the integrity of the auction market or disadvantage other market participants. 20 Accordingly, by restricting trading based on knowledge of an imminent undisclosed solicited, facilitated, or crossing transaction, the Commission believes that the proposal will help to maintain the integrity of the Amex's market. As noted above, a member or associated person who has knowledge of all of the material terms of a solicited order, an order being facilitated, or orders being crossed may trade after disclosing to the trading crowd the terms of the originating order and any changes in the terms and conditions of the order. 21 The Commission believes that this disclosure requirement should provide the trading crowd with a fair and full opportunity to make informed trading decisions. 22

The Commission notes that proposed Commentary .04 does not relieve market participants of the general Amex requirement that their acts and practice be consistent with just and equitable principles of trade. 23 Thus, the Commission notes, as it has concluded previously, 24 that disclosing the terms of an order and any change in the terms and conditions of the order to the trading crowd prior to effecting a trade does not provide a safe harbor from possible violations of front-running prohibitions. 25

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 196-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 14, 2000, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Amendment No. 1 was filed on June 2, 2000. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 1202 to provide for the trading of Holding Company Depository Receipts (“HOLDRs”) pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act. 4 The text of the proposed rule change follows. Italics indicate text to be added.

Trust Issued Receipts will be listed and traded on the Exchange subject to application of the following criteria:

Commentary .01 The Exchange may approve a series of HOLDRs for listing and trading on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), provided each of the component securities satisfies the following criteria:

Eligibility Criteria for Component Securities Represented by a series of HOLDRs:

(i) each component security must be registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act;

(ii) each component security must have a minimum public float of at least $150 million;

(iii) each component security must be listed on a national securities exchange or traded through the facilities of Nasdaq and be a reported national market system security;

(iv) each component security must have an average daily trading volume of at least 100,000 shares during the preceding sixty-day trading period;

(v) each component security must have an average daily dollar value of shares traded during the preceding sixty-day trading period of at least $1 million; and

(vi) the most heavily weighted security may not initially represent more than 20% of the overall value of the HOLDR.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

The Exchange proposes to amend Amex rule 1202 to provide for the trading of HOLDRs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act. On September 21, 1999, the Amex received approval to adopt new Rules 1200 et seq. to permit the trading of Trust Issued Receipts (of which HOLDRs are a type). 5 Since that time, the Exchange has listed Internet, Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical, Telecommunications, Business to Business, Internet Architecture, Internet Infrastructure, Broadband, and Semiconductor HOLDRs. The Exchange anticipates additional proposals to list new HOLDRs products.

To accommodate the listing of additional HOLDRs, the Exchange now proposes to revise existing listing criteria and trading rules to permit the listing and trading of HOLDRs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e). 6 The Exchange believes listing newly proposed HOLDRs products pursuant to Rule 19-4(e) is appropriate because the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, trading rules, procedures and listing standards for the HOLDRs product class and the Exchange has a surveillance program for the HOLDRs' product class. 7 In addition, the Commission has reviewed a number of proposals to list and trade the Internet and Biotech holders that comprised the same product structure. The Commission noticed these proposed rule changes regarding the Internet and Biotech HOLDRS in the Federal Register and did not receive any comments concerning the proposals.

Amex Rule 1200 subjects HOLDRs to all of the Exchange's trading rules by providing that the provisions of the Exchange's Constitution and all other rules and policies of the Board of Governors apply to the trading of HOLDRs on the Exchange. Further, initial and continued listing standards applicable to HOLDRs, as set forth in Amex Rule 1202, currently provide that HOLDRs will be listed and traded on the Exchange subject to application of the following criteria: (a) Initial Listing—For each Trust, the Exchange will establish a minimum number of Trust Issued Receipts required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange: (b) Continued Listing—Following the initial twelve month period following formation of a Trust and commencement of trading on the Exchange, the Exchange will consider the suspension of trading in or removal from listing of a Trust upon which a series of Trust Issued Receipts is based under any of the following circumstances: (i) if the Trust has more than 60 days remaining until termination and there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of Trust Issued Receipts for 30 or more consecutive trading days; (ii) if the Trust has fewer than 50,000 receipts issued and outstanding; (iii) if the market value of all receipts issued and outstanding is less than $1,000,000; or, (iv) if such other event shall occur or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable.

In addition, the component securities represented by the securities in the portfolio underlying HOLDRs must meet the following minimum criteria: (1) Each component security must be registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act; (2) the minimum public float of each component security included in the portfolio must be at least $150 million; (3) each component security must either be listed on a national securities exchange or be traded through the facilities of Nasdaq and be a reported national market system security; (4) the average daily trading volume for each component security must be at least 100,000 shares during the preceding sixty-day trading period; and (5) the average daily dollar value of the shares traded during the preceding sixty-day trading period must be at least $1 million. And lastly, no component security may initially represent more than 20% of the overall value of the receipt. 8

The Exchange believes codifying the abovbe listing criteria for HOLDRs listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) will ensure that no security included in the basket and HOLDRs will be readily susceptible to manipulation, while permitting sufficient flexibility in the construction of various HOLDRs baskets to meet investors' needs. Additionally, the listing criteria will further serve to ensure sufficient liquidity for those investors seeking to purchase and deposit in basket securities with the trustee to create HOLDRs.

The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act  9 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 10 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.

No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

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 the proposed rule change; or

(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. 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 at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-AMEX-00-10 and should be submitted by July 3, 2000.

On February 1, 2000, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to rescind Rules 5 and 6, the Exchange's off-board trading rules, and to make conforming changes to Rules 25, 317, 900 and 959. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2000. 3 Proposed rule changes filed by thee Chicago Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange to rescind their off-board trading rules were published on the same date as the Amex proposing release. 4 Shortly thereafter, the Boston Stock Exchange and the Pacific Exchange filed similar proposed rule changes. 5 The Commission received no comments on any of these proposals. Today, in separate orders, the Commission is approving the proposed rule changes to rescind off-board trading rules filed by the exchanges noted above. 6

Exchange Rules 5 and 6 restrict a member's ability to effect transactions in Exchange-listed securities (Rule 5) and bonds (Rule 6) off a national securities exchange. In the proposing release, the Exchange explained that these rules were originally intended to “centralize buying and selling interest in listed securities to ensure the execution of orders at the best possible prices. Over time, however, these off-board trading restrictions came to be viewed by many as anticompetitive.” The Exchange also noted that Chairman Levitt had recently called for the elimination of off-board trading rules.

The Exchange proposed to eliminate Exchange Rule 5 because the rule is “largely irrelevant” to the trading of Amex-listed equity securities, given the applicability of Commission Rule 19c-3  7 and the fact that most Amex-listed stocks were listed for trading after April 26, 1979. The Exchange also noted that Exchange Rule 5 only applies to Amex members, and that non-member firms do in fact trade Amex-listed equities off an exchange. With respect to Exchange Rule 6, the Exchange stated that the rule was of “little practical consequence” due to the exceptions in the rule that permit “the great bulk of listed bond transactions to occur over-the counter.” Therefore, in light of the “limited practical impact of the Exchange's off-board trading rules and the changing view on their propriety.” the Exchange proposed to eliminate its off-board trading restrictions for Amex-listed equities and bonds.

The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act  8 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The rescission of the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act  9 which sets forth the findings and objectives that are to guide the Commission in its oversight of the national market system. Specifically, rescinding the off-board trading restrictions will help further the national market system objective in Section 11(A)(a)(1)(C)(i) to assure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions, and in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) to assure fair competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. 10

As discussed more fully in the NYSE Approval Order, the existence of off-board trading restricting can no longer be justified in an age when advancing technology and expanding trading volume are introducing new competitive challenges for the U.S. securities markets, both at home and abroad. Off-board trading rules such as Exchange Rules 5 and 6 directly restrict a certain type of market center competition—competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. Their rescission today eliminates an inappropriate regulatory burden on competition that runs contrary to the objectives set forth in the Act.

Off-board trading restrictions have been justified on the basis that they promote the interaction of investors' orders without participation by a dealer—indeed an objective set forth in the Act. 11 The Commission believes, however, that whatever beneficial effect off-board trading restrictions such as Exchange Rules 5 and 6 may have in enhancing the interaction of investor orders can no longer justify their anticompetitive nature. To the extent off-board trading rules enhance order interaction, they do so in an undesirable way—by attempting a direct restriction on competition. Such attempts are never wholly successful and typically only distort, rather than eliminate, competition and introduce unnecessary costs ultimately borne by investors.

The outcome of competition between market centers should depend on which market centers are most able to serve investor interests by providing the highest quality trading services at the lowest possible prices; the Commission's regulatory task is removing unwarranted regulatory barriers to competition between market centers. As stated in the NYSE Approval Order, the rescission of off-board trading rules is “intended solely to free the forces of competition and allow investor interests to control the success or failure of individual market centers.”  12 The same rationale and motivation support the Commission's action today.

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-00-05) is approved.

On March 9, 2000, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to rescind Chapter II, Section 23, the Exchange's off-board trading rule. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 17, 2000. 3 Shortly thereafter, a proposed rule change filed by the Pacific Exchange rescinding its off-board trading rule was published for public comment. 4 Similar proposed rule changes filed by the American Stock Exchange, Chicago Stock Exchange, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange had already been published for public comment. 5 The Commission received no comments on any of these proposals. Today, in separate orders, the Commission is approving the proposed rule changes to rescind off-board trading rules filed by the exchange noted above. 6

Chapter II, Section 23 restricts a member's ability to effect transactions in Exchange-listed securities off a national securities exchange. In the proposing release, the Exchange noted that “[a]dvances in the application of technology have resulted in the creation of new competitors to the regional exchanges, such as Alternative Trading Systems. As such, the Exchange recognizes the need for exchanges and their members to take part in the greater level of free market trading.” The Exchange also noted that the NYSE had proposed to rescind its off-board trading rule, and that the Commission had requested that the Exchange review its restrictions on off-board trading.

The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act  7 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The rescission of the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act  8 which sets forth the findings and objectives that are to guide the Commission in its oversight of the national market system. Specifically, rescinding the off-board trading restrictions will help further the national market system objective in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(i) to assure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions, and in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) to assure fair competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. 9

As discussed more fully in the NYSE Approval Order, the existence of off-board trading restrictions can no longer be justified in an age when advancing technology and expanding trading volume are introducing new competitive challenges for the U.S. securities markets, both at home and abroad. Off-board trading rules such as Chapter II, Section 23 directly restrict a certain type of market center competition—competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. Their rescission today eliminates an inappropriate regulatory burden on competition that runs contrary to the objectives set forth in the Act.

Off-board trading restrictions have been justified on the basis that they promote the interaction of investors' orders without participation by a dealer—indeed an objective set forth in the Act. 10 The Commission believes, however, that whatever beneficial effect off-board trading restrictions such as Chapter II, Section 23 may have in enhancing the interaction of investor orders can no longer justify their anticompetitive nature. To the extent off-board trading rules enhance order interaction, they do so in an undesirable way—by attempting a direct restriction on competition. Such attempts are never wholly successful and typically only distort, rather than eliminate, competition and introduce unnecessary costs ultimately borne by investors.

The outcome of competition between market centers should depend on which market centers are most able to serve investor interests by providing the highest quality trading services at the lowest possible prices; the Commission's regulatory task removing unwarranted regulatory barriers to competition between market centers. As stated in the NYSE Approval Order, the rescission of off-board trading rules is “intended solely to free the forces of competition and allow investor interests to control the success or failure of individual market centers.”  11 The same rationale and motivation support the Commission's action today.

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-00-02) is approved.

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 March 17, 2000, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to amend its Interpretation .01(d) of CHX Article VI, Rule 3 by eliminating the Series 7B Qualification Examination  3 for Exchange floor clerks who may, among other functions, accept orders from professional customers  4 for execution on the Exchange's complete the Exchange's Floor Membership Examination and either the Series 7 Examination or the Series 7A Qualification Examination. 5 Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.

On December 27, 1999, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to rescind certain provisions of Article VIII, Exchange Rule 9, the Exchange's off-board trading rules. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2000. 3 Proposed rule changes filed by the American Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange to rescind their off-board trading rules were published on the same date as the CHX proposing release. 4 Shortly thereafter, the Boston Stock Exchange and the Pacific Exchange filed similar proposed rule changes. 5 The Commission received no comments on any of these proposals. Today, in separate orders, the Commission is approving the proposed rule changes to rescind off-board trading rules filed by the exchanges noted above.

Certain provision of Article VIII, Exchange Rule 9 restricts a member's ability to effect transactions in Exchange-listed securities off a national securities exchange. In the proposing release, the Exchange noted that the New York Stock Exchange, along with other exchanges, had submitted similar proposals to rescind their off-board trading rules, 6 and that the Commission had recently adopted amendments to the Intermarket Trading System Plan (“ITS”) to expand the ITS linkage with the National Association of Securities Dealers' Computer Assisted Execution System. Thus, “to confirm the Exchange's commitment to the competitive ideals on which those actions are based,” the Exchange proposed to rescind certain provisions of its off-board trading rule, Article VIII, Exchange Rule 9.

The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act  7 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The rescission of the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act  8 which sets forth the findings and objectives that are to guide the Commission in its oversight of the national market system. Specifically, rescinding the off-board trading restrictions will help further the national market system objective in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(i) to assure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions, and in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) to assure fair competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. 9

As discussed more fully in the NYSE Approval Order, the existence of off-board trading restrictions can no longer be justified in an age when advancing technology and expanding trading volume are introducing new competitive challenges for the U.S. securities markets, both at home and abroad. Off-board trading rules such as Articles VIII, Exchange Rule 9 directly restrict a certain type of market center competition—competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. Their rescission today eliminates an inappropriate regulatory burden on competition that runs contrary to the objectives set forth in the Act.

Off-board trading restrictions have been justified on the basis that they promote the interaction of investors' orders without participation by a dealer—indeed an objective set forth in the Act. 10 The Commission believes, however, that whatever beneficial effect off-board trading restrictions such as Article VIII, Exchange Rule 9 may have in enhancing the interaction of investors orders can no longer justify their anticompetitive nature. To the extent off-board trading rules enhance order interaction, they do so in an undesirable way—by attempting a direct restriction on competition. Such attempts are never wholly successful and typically only distort, rather than eliminate, competition and introduce unnecessary costs ultimately borne by investors.

The outcome of competition between market centers should depend on which market centers are most able to serve investors interests by providing the highest quality trading services at the lowest possible prices; the Commission's regulatory task is removing unwarranted regulatory barriers to competition between market centers. As stated in the NYSE Approval Order, the rescission of off-board trading rules is “intended solely to free the forces of competition and allow investors interest to control the success or failure of individual market centers.”  11 The same rationale and motivation support the Commission's action today.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-99-28) is approved.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 2, 1999, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD” or “Association”), through its wholly owned subsidiary NASD Regulation, Inc. (“NASD Regulation”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD Regulation. On May 1, 2000, the NASD Regulation filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

NASD Regulation is proposing to amend the Rule 1010 Series, which concerns member admission. Additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed].

Unless otherwise provided, terms used in the Rule 1010 Series shall have the meaning as defined in Rule 0120.

(a) “Applicant”

The term “Applicant” means a person [or entity] that applies for membership in the Association under Rule 1013[,] or a member that files an application [to remove or modify a restriction under Rule 1017, or files a notice and application for continuance in membership under Rule 1018] for approval of a change in ownership, control, or business operations under Rule 1017.

(b) “Associated Person”

The term “Associated Person” means: ( 1 ) a natural person registered under the Rules of the Association; or ( 2 ) a sole proprietor, partner, officer, director, branch manager, or other natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions who will be or is anticipated to be associated with the Applicant, or a natural person engaged in the investment banking or securities business who will be or is anticipated to be directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the Applicant, whether or not any such person is registered or exempt from registration under the NASD By-Laws or the Rules of the Association.

(c) “Department”

The term “Department” means the Department of Member Regulation of NASD Regulation.

(d) “Director”

The term “Director” means a member of the NASD Regulation Board.

(e) “district”

The term “district” means a district established by the NASD Regulation Board.

(f) “district office”

The term “district office” means an office of NASD Regulation located in a district.

(g) “Governor”

The term “Governor” means a member of the NASD Board.

(h) “Interested Association Staff”

The term “Interested Association Staff” means an employee who directly participates in a decision under Rule 1014[,] or 1017, [or 1018,] an employee who directly supervises an employee with respect to such decision, an employee who conducted an investigation or examination of a member that files an application under Rule 1017 [or a notice and application under Rule 1018], the District Director for the relevant district, and the head of the Department.

(i) “material change in business operations”

The term “material change in business operations” includes, but is not limited to:

(1) removing or modifying a membership agreement restriction;

(2) market making, underwriting, or acting as a dealer for the first time; and

( 3) adding business activities that require a higher minimum net capital under SEC Rule 15c3-1.

[(i)]( j) “NASD Board”

The term “NASD Board” means the Board of Governors of the NASD.

[(j)]( k ) “NASD Regulation Board”

The term “NASD Regulation Board” means the Board of Directors of NASD Regulation.

(l) “principal place of business”

The term “principal place of business” means the executive office from which the sole proprietor or the officers, partners, or managers of the Applicant direct, control, and coordinate the activities of the Applicant, unless the Department determines that the principal place of business is where: (1) the largest number of Associated Persons of the Applicant are located; or (2) the books and records necessary to provide information and data to operate the business and comply with applicable rules are located.

[(k)]( m ) “sales practice [violations] event ”

The term “sales practice [violations] event ” means any [conduct directed at or involving a customer that would constitute a violation of any Rule in the Rule 2000 or 3000; any provision of the Act, Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or any state statute prohibiting fraudulent conduct in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of a security or in connection with the rendering of investment advice] customer complaint, arbitration, or civil litigation that has been reported to the Central Registration Depository, currently is required to be reported to the Central Registration Depository, or otherwise has been reported to the Association.

[(l)]( n ) “Subcommittee”

The term “Subcommittee” means a subcommittee of the National Adjudicatory Council that is constituted pursuant to Rule 1015 to conduct a review of a Department decision issued under the Rule 1010 Series.

This interpretive material concerns the types of business expansions that will not require a member to submit a Rule 1017 application to obtain NASD Regulation's approval of the expansion. This safe harbor applies to: (1) firms that do not have a membership agreement, and (2) firms that have a membership agreement that does not contain a restriction on the factors listed below.

The safe harbor is not available to a member that has a membership agreement that contains a specific restriction as to one or more of the factors listed below. In that case, the agreement takes precedence because NASD Regulation has determined that a particular restriction should apply as to one or more of the factors, and NASD Regulation has issued a decision with a rationale for that restriction. Similarly, the safe harbor also does not apply if the member has a membership agreement that permits expansion beyond the limits set forth below (e.g., an Applicant requests and obtains approval for ten registered representatives in the first six months with an additional ten registered representatives in the next year); in such case, the Department has specifically considered the firm's expansion plans and approved them.

The safe harbor is not available to any member that has disciplinary history. For purposes of this Interpretation, “disciplinary history” means a finding of a violation by the member or a principal of the member in the past five years by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a self-regulatory organization, or a foreign financial regulatory authority of one or more of the following provisions (or a comparable foreign provision) or rules or regulations thereunder: Sections 15(b)(4)(E) and 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; SEC Rules 10b-5 and 15g-1 through 15g-9; NASD Rules 2110, 2120, 2310, 2330, 2440, 3010 (failure to supervise only), 3310, and 3330; and MSRB Rules G-19, G-30, and G-37(b) & (c).

For those firms to which the safe harbor is available, the following types of expansions are presumed not to be a material change in business operations and therefore do not require a Rule 1017 application. For any expansion beyond these limits, a member should contact its district office prior to implementing the change to determine whether the proposed expansion requires an application under Rule 1017. Expansions in each area are measured on a rolling 12-month basis; members are required to keep records of increases in personnel, offices, and markets to determine whether they are within the safe harbor.

“Associated Persons involved in sales” includes all Associated Persons, whether or not registered, who are involved in sales activities with public customers, including sales assistants and cold callers, but excludes clerical, back office, and trading personnel who are not involved in sales activities.

On March 26, 2000, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to rescind Rules 5.43-5.49, the Exchange's off-board trading rules, and to make a conforming change to Rule 5.5(b). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 19, 2000. 3 Similar proposed rule changes filed by the American Stock Exchange, Chicago Stock Exchange, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, and the Boston Stock Exchange had already been published for public comment. 4 The Commission received no comments on any of these proposals. Today, in separate orders, the Commission is approving the proposed rule changes to rescind off-board trading rules filed by the exchanges noted above. 5

Exchange Rules 5.43-5.49 restrict a member's ability to effect transactions in Exchange-listed securities off a national securities exchange. In the proposing release, the Exchange stated that “once the Commission approves the NYSE's proposal to rescind its off-board trading restrictions, the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions will no longer be necessary or appropriate.” Therefore, the Exchange proposed to rescind Rules 5.43-5.49, and to make a conforming change to Rule 5.5(b).

The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act  6 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The rescission of the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act  7 which sets forth the findings and objectives that are to guide the Commission in its oversight of the national market system. Specifically, rescinding the off-board trading restrictions will help further the national market system objective in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(i) to assure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions, and in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) to assure fair competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. 8

As discussed more fully in the NYSE Approval order, the existence of off-board trading restrictions can no longer be justified in an age when advancing technology and expanding trading volume are introducing new competitive challenges for the U.S. securities markets, both at home and abroad. Off-board trading rules such as Rules 5.43-5.49 directly restrict a certain type of market center competition—competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. Their rescission today eliminates an inappropriate regulatory burden on competition that runs contrary to the objectives set forth in the Act.

Off-board trading restrictions have been justified on the basis that they promote the interaction of investors' orders without participation by a dealer—indeed an objective set forth in the Act. 9 The Commission believes, however, that whatever beneficial effect off-board trading restrictions such as Rules 5.43-5.49 may have in enhancing the interaction of investor orders can no longer justify their anticompetitive nature. To the extent off-board trading rules enhance order interaction, they do so in an undesirable way—by attempting a direct restriction on competition. Such attempts are never wholly successful and typically only distort, rather than eliminate, competition and introduce unnecessary costs ultimately borne by investors.

The outcome of competition between market centers should depend on which market centers are most able to serve investor interests by providing the highest quality trading services at the lowest possible prices; the Commission's regulatory task is removing unwarranted regulatory barriers to competition between market centers. As stated in the NYSE Approval Order, the rescission of off-board trading rules is “intended solely to free the forces of competition and allow investor interests to control the success or failure of individual market centers.”  10 The same nationale and motivation support the Commission's action today.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-00-11) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12

On February 10, 2000, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)  1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to rescind Rule 132, the Exchange's off-board trading rule. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2000. 3 Proposed rule changes filed by the American Stock Exchange and the Chicago Stock Exchange to rescind their off-board trading rules were published on the same date as the Phlx proposing release. 4 Shortly thereafter, the Boston Stock Exchange and the Pacific Exchange filed similar proposed rule changes. 5 The Commission received no comments on any of these proposals. Today, in separate orders, the Commission is approving the proposed rule changes to rescind off-board trading rules filed by the exchanges noted above. 6

Exchange Rule 132 restricts a member's ability to effect transactions in Exchange-listed securities off a national securities exchange. In the proposing release the Exchange noted that the “staff of the Commission recently asked the Exchange to review its off-board trading restrictions and consider measures to repeal such restrictions.” Therefore, the Exchange proposed rescinding Rule 132 to “broaden the free market trading activities of Exchange members and the investors they represent by removing restrictions on over-the-counter trading in listed securities.”

The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act  7 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 6(b)(8), which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The rescission of the Exchange's off-board trading restrictions is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act  8 which sets forth the findings and objectives that are to guide the Commission in its oversight of the national market system. Specifically, rescinding the off-board trading restrictions will help further the national market system objective in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(i) to assure the economically efficient executive of securities transactions, and in Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) to assure fair competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. 9

As discussed more fully in the NYSE Approval Order, the existence of off-board trading restrictions can no longer be justified in an age when advancing technology and expanding trading volume are introducing new competitive challenges for the U.S. securities markets, both at home and abroad. Off-board trading rules such as Rule 132 directly restrict a certain type of market center competition—competition between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets. Their rescission today eliminates an inappropriate regulatory burden on competition that runs contrary to the objectives set forth in the Act.

Off-board trading restrictions have been justified on the basis that they promote the interaction of investors' orders without participation by a dealer—indeed an objective set forth in the Act. 10 The Commission believes, however, that whatever beneficial effect off-board trading restrictions such as Rule 132 may have in enhancing the interaction of investor orders can no longer justify their anticompetitive nature. To the extent off-board trading rules enhance order interaction, they do so in an undesirable way—by attempting a direct restriction on competition. Such attempts are never wholly successful and typically only distort, rather than eliminate, competition and introduce unnecessary costs ultimately borne by investors.

The outcome of competition between market center should depend on which market centers are most able to serve investor interests by providing the highest quality trading services at the lowest possible prices; the Commission's regulatory task is removing unwarranted regulatory barriers to competition between market centers. As stated in the NYSE Approval Order, the rescission of off-board trading rules is “intended solely to free the forces of competition and allow investor interests to control the success or failure of individual market centers.”  11 The same rationale and motivation support the Commission's action today.

It is therefore ordered , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-00-12) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13

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 18, 2000, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”), filed a proposed rule change with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”). The proposed rule change is described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On April 20, 2000, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Exchange filed the proposed rule change, as amended, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

The Exchange is proposing to extend the pilot program relating to Exchange Rule 98, Emergency Committee, for an additional 120 days, or until August 21, 2000. No changes to the existing rule language are being proposed.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

On December 23, 1999, the Commission granted approval to amendments to Exchange Rule 98, Emergency Committee (the “Committee”) on a 120-day pilot basis. 6 In general, the Committee is authorized to determine the existence of, and take action with respect to, extraordinary market conditions or other emergencies at the Exchange. The amendments to Exchange Rule 98 updated the composition of the Committee to reflect the current governance structure of the Exchange, 7 clarified that the Committee was authorized to act in the event of any emergency condition created by the Year 200 date change, and deleted a provision referencing CENTRAMART, an equity order entry system which is no longer used on the Exchange. The Committee is now composed of five individuals: the Chairman of the Board of Governors; the On-Floor Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors; and the Chairmen of the Floor Procedure Committee, the Options Committee, and the Foreign Currency Options Committee.

The Commission approved the amendments to Exchange Rule 98 on a pilot basis in order to allow the Exchange to examine the operation of the Committee to ensure that the Committee is not dominated by any one Exchange interest ( e.g., On-Floor or Off-Floor interests). The Commission requested that the Exchange report back to the Commission on its views as to whether the Committee structure ensures that all Exchange interests are fairly represented by the Committee. The Exchange has requested that the pilot program be extended in order to provide it more time to examine the operation of the Committee and submit the requested information to the Commission.

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 which requires that the rules of an Exchange be designed to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change, as amended.

The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act  9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)  10 thereunder because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of a rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 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.

The Commission finds that it is appropriate to accelerate the effective date of the proposed rule change and to permit the proposed rule change to become immediately effective because the proposal simply extends a previously approved pilot program for an additional 120 days, or until August 21, 2000. By extending the pilot program, the Commission will enable the Committee to be in place and operational in the event of any extraordinary market conditions or emergencies at the Exchange, and will afford the Exchange the opportunity to respond to the Commission's request to provide information on whether the Committee is fairly representing all interests of the Exchange. 11

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 with the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-Phlx-00-41 and should be submitted by July 3, 2000. 12

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.

The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans (Committee) will be held on June 26-27, 2000, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 230, Washington, DC. On June 26, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On June 26, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On June 27, the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 12 noon.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding the needs of women veterans with respect to health care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach, and other programs and activities administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs designed to meet such needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.

Both days of the meeting will be to discuss the proceedings of the National Summit on Women Veterans Issues, scheduled on June 23-25, 2000, in preparation of the Committee's annual report. All sessions will be open to the public.

Those who plan to attend should contact Ms. Maryanne Carson, Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Women Veterans, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420 at (202) 273-6193.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Vicksburg/Jackson Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the space launch vehicle composite structures manufacturing plant of Alliant Aerospace Composite Structures Company (Alliant), located in Iuka, Mississippi. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on June 2, 2000.

The Alliant plant (20 acres/317,000 sq. ft.) is located at within the Tri State Commerce Park at 751 County Road 989, Iuka (Tishomingo County), Mississippi. The facility (200 employees) is used to produce composite foam structural components (thermal shield, center body, forward skirt, nose cone) for space launch vehicles ( i.e., rockets) manufactured by U.S. aerospace firms. The production process involves heat forming polymethacrylimide (“Rohacell”) foam, machining, layering with carbon fiber and adhesives, pressurization/heat curing, and trimming. The only material input purchased from abroad that would be admitted to the proposed subzone in foreign status (19 CFR 146.42(a)) is polymethacrylimide foam—HTSUS# 3921.19.00; duty rate: 6.5% (representing 8% of finished product value).

FTZ procedures would exempt Alliant from Customs duty payments on the foreign polymethacrylimide foam used in export production. On its domestic sales, the company would be able to choose the duty rate that applies to finished composite structures (duty free) for the foreign foam input noted above. The application indicates that subzone status would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.

Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 11, 2000. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to August 28, 2000).

A copy of the application and the accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 704 East. Main Street, Raymond, MS 39154.

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230-0001.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, grantee of FTZ 78, requesting authority to expand its zone in the Nashville, Tennessee area, and requesting, on behalf of Dell Computer Corporation (Dell), authority to manufacture personal computers under zone procedures within FTZ 78 (Nashville Customs port of entry). The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on June 1, 2000.

FTZ 78 was approved on March 2, 1982 (Board Order 190, 47 FR 16191, 4/ 15/82) and expanded on February 18, 1999 (Board Order 1024, 64 FR 9472, 2/26/99). The zone currently consists of five sites in the Nashville, Tennessee area:

Site 1—(52,000 square feet) within a 200,000 square foot warehouse located at 750 Cowan Street, Nashville;

Site 2—(63 acres) within the 2,000-acre Cockrill Bend industrial park, Nashville;

Site 3—(275,000 square feet) within a 400,000 square foot warehouse located at 323 Mason Road, La Vergne, Tennessee;

Site 4—(39 acres) Space Park North Industrial Park, 1000 Cartwright Street, Goodlettsville, Tennessee; and

Site 5—(19 acres) Old Stone Bridge Industrial Park, Old Stone Bridge, Goodlettsville.

The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the FTZ to include two additional sites:

Site 6—“Airport Site,” to include 806 acres located in Nashville at Nashville International Airport, One Terminal Drive, Nashville. The Airport Site involves an industrial-park type of facility that will include manufacturing, distribution, and logistics facilities for Dell and warehousing and logistics facilities for other parties requiring FTZ procedures at the airport, particularly involving air freight; and

Site 7—“Eastgate Site,” at 3850 Eastgate Boulevard, Lebanon, Tennessee. This site is in the Eastgate Business Park, off Interstate 40, twelve miles east of Nashville International Airport. The site contains 38 acres with one 300,000 square foot building currently occupied by Dell—the remainder of the site will be available for other users.

The application also requests authority on behalf of Dell to manufacture personal computers, including servers and workstations, within FTZ 78 (within the proposed expansion sites). Dell is already authorized to manufacture such computers under zone procedures within Foreign Trade Zone 183 and Subzone 183A. This proposal requests the same scope of manufacturing authority under FTZ procedures in terms of products or components as requested in Dell's previous applications, and involves an increase in the overall level of production under FTZ procedures for Dell.

The specific finished products for which Dell seeks authority to produce under FTZ procedures are various types of computers (desktop and notebook computers, workstations, and network servers) and data storage products. All of these products fall into HTSUS classifications which are duty free. The imported components for which Dell is seeking inverted tariff benefits include: plastic and rubber components; cloth tape; metal screws, clamps, washers, clips, and springs; locks and keys; fans; adapters and battery chargers; magnets; batteries; microphones; speakers; surge protectors; switches; sockets and plugs; cables, connectors, and power cords; “populated” printed circuit boards; and leather carrying cases. Duty rates on these items range up to 6.2% ad valorem .

In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.

Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 11, 2000. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 28, 2000.

A copy of the application and the accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Nashville Export Assistance Center, 211 Commerce Ave, Suite 100, Nashville, TN 37201.

The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is schedule for June 15, 2000, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum (Pension Building), Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001-2728. Items of discussion will include designs for projects affecting the appearance of Washington, D.C., including buildings and parks.

Inquiries regarding the agenda and request to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)). Copies of these individual ICRs, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation, Tracy Stone, Director, AmeriCorps Promise Fellows, (202) 606-5000, extension 173. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call (202) 565-2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Information and Regultory Affairs (OIRA), Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503, (202) 395-6466, within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Description: The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows program supports a leadership cadre of AmeriCorps members spearheading community efforts to provide young people with five basic promises:

• Caring adults in their lives as parents, mentors, tutors, and coaches;

• Safe places with structured activities in which to learn and grow;

• A healthy start;

• An effective education that equips them with marketable skills; and

• An opportunity to give back to communities through their own service.

The AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Continuation Application Instructions provide the requirements, instructions and forms that current grantees of the program need to complete an application to the Corporation for continued funding.

The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these continuation application instructions.

Type of Review: New collection.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps Promise Fellows Continuation Application Instructions.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Entities in their first or second year of operation as grantees of the Corporation's AmeriCorps Promise Fellows program.

Total Respondents: 66.

Frequency: Once per year.

Average Time Per Response: 25 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,650 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Consumers Energy will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. Consumers Energy also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Consumers Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Consumers Energy.

On June 1, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:

Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Consumers Energy should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).

Absent a request for hearing within this period, Consumers Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Consumers Energy, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Consumers Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 3, 2000.

Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that on May 31, 2000, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC (Discovery) filed a Request for Waiver of section 284.12(c)(3) of the Commission's regulations with respect to conducting electronic transactions on the public internet. Discovery states that it is a relatively small company whose customers conduct relatively few transactions. It claims that implementation of the services required under this regulation is not warranted and would not be cost effective under the circumstances.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 13, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that on May 26, 2000, Idaho Power Company (IPC), tendered Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements for Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Company and Puget Sound Energy.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 16, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that on June 2, 2000, Indeck Maine Energy, LLC submitted for filing, pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, a Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing And Request for Immediate Action against the ISO New England, Inc.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protests this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 12, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before June 12, 2000.

Take notice that on June 1, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch) tendered for filing its cash-in/cash-out report for the period April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000.

Koch states that copies of this filing have been served upon Koch's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 13, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that on June 1, 2000, PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (PG&E GT-NW) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets with an effective date of June 1, 2000:

PG&E GT-NW states that these sheets are being filed to reflect the implementation of four negotiated rate agreements.

PG&E GT-NW further states that a copy of this filing has been served on PG&E GT-NW's jurisdictional customers, and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www/ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that on June 2, 2000, Sinclair Oil Corporation (Sinclair) tendered for filing a complaint against Equilon Pipe Line Company LLC (Equilon).

Sinclair states that it is a shipper of crude oil on a pipeline operated by Equilon that originates at South Terminal, Cushing, Lincoln County, Oklahoma and terminates at West Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Sinclair further states that its crude oil shipments on that line constitute transportation in interstate commerce and that Equilon has refused to publish a tariff with the Commission to govern the use of the pipeline.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before June 26, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before June 26, 2000.

Take notice that on June 2, 2000, Westar Generating II, Inc. filed a Notice of Withdrawal of its April 28, 2000, application for acceptance of the Purchase Power Agreement between Westar and Western Resources, Inc.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 16, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:

Take notice that on May 25, 2000, CED Operating Company, L.P., c/o Consolidated Edison Development, Inc., 111 Broadway, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10006, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.

CED Operating Company, L.P. (CED Opco) is a Delaware limited partnership. CED Generation Holding Company, L.P., a Delaware limited liability company, (“Holdco”) owns a 99 percent limited partner's interest in Applicant. Holdco is a direct subsidiary of Consolidated Edison Development (“CED”), a New York corporation, which is a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (“Con Ed, Inc.”), also a New York corporation. CED Management Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, owns a one (1) percent general partner's interest in Applicant, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holdco. CED Opco will operate under an operations and maintenance agreement with the owner, a facility with a maximum capacity of approximately 238 MW located in Lakewood Township, New Jersey.

Comment date: June 23, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application.

Take notice that on May 25, 2000, Kiowa Power Partners, L.LC. (the Applicant) whose address is 359 Lake Park Road, Suite 128, Lewisville, Texas 75057, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.

The Applicant states that it will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning and/or operating an electric generating facility located near Kiowa, Oklahoma and selling electric energy at wholesale. The Applicant requests a determination that the Applicant is an exempt wholesale generator under Section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

Comment date: June 23, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application.

Take notice that on May 25, 2000, Servicios Energéticos, S.A. (the Applicant) whose address is Servicios Energéticos, S.A., Av. Hernando Siles No. 5635, Obrajes, La Paz, Bolivia, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.

The Applicant states that it will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning and/or operating an electric generating facility located in the Republic of Bolivia and selling electric energy at wholesale. The Applicant requests a determination that the Applicant is an exempt wholesale generator under Section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.

Comment date: June 23, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice. The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Services), tendered for filing on behalf of its operating companies, The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and PSI Energy, Inc. (collectively Cinergy Operating Companies) a Letter Agreement, dated April 24, 2000, as a supplement to the Service Agreement No. 43, dated January 22, 1997, between Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SWEC) and the Cinergy Operating Companies under the COC FERC Electric Market-Based Power Sales Tariff, Volume No. 7.

SWEC and the Cinergy Operating Companies have agreed to procedures for the curtailment of some of SWEC's load.

Copies of the filing were served on SWEC and the State Regulatory Commissions of Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply) filed Amendment No. 1 to Supplement No. 12 to the Market Rate Tariff to incorporate a Settlement Procedures Agreement with Citizens Power Sales LLC into the tariff provisions.

Allegheny Energy Supply Company requests a waiver of notice requirements to make the Amendment effective as of May 23, 2000.

Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission, and all parties of record.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) filed a Service Agreement dated May 8, 2000 with Constellation Power Source under DLC's Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). The Service Agreement adds Constellation Power Source as a customer under the Tariff.

DLC requests an effective date of May 8, 2000 for the Service Agreement.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Broad River Energy LLC (Broad River) tendered for filing an executed umbrella service agreement under which Broad River will make short-term market-based power sales under its Market-Based Rate Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L).

Broad River requests an effective date of June 1, 2000, for the umbrella service agreement.

Broad River states that a copy of the filing has been served on CP&L.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing two executed umbrella service agreements for network integration transmission service under state retail access programs under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff with BGE Home Products & Service, Inc. and ECONnergy PA, Inc. with effective dates of May 23, 2000 and May 1, 2000, respectively.

Copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the service agreements and the state commissions within the PJM control area.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX) tendered for filing its Tariff Amendment No. 15, designed to track changes in the Payments Calendar implemented by Tariff Amendment No. 25 of the California Independent System Operator Corporation.

CalPX requests an effective date of July 24, 2000.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX) tendered for filing proposed Tariff Amendment No. 16, designed to track certain changes implemented by Tariff Amendment Nos. 25 and 28 of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO).

CalPX requests an effective date of March 27, 2000 for changes related to charges for cancellation of maintenance outages and June 15, 2000 for payments and charges related to the CAISO's Demand Relief Program.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX) tendered for filing its Tariff Amendment No. 17, designed to track the ten-minute market implemented by Tariff Amendment No. 29 of the California Independent System Operator Corporation.

CalPX requests an effective date to coincide with the effective date of CAISO's ten-minute market in its Tariff Amendment No. 29.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, Inc., tendered for filing an Interconnection and Operating Agreement with Cleco Midstream Resources LLC (Cleco), and a Generator Imbalance Agreement with Cleco.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Mississippi, Inc., tendered for filing an Interconnection and Operating Agreement with Warren Power, LLC (Warren), and a Generator Imbalance Agreement with Warren.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.

Take notice that on May 30, 1999, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) tendered for filing an executed transmission service agreement with Croswell Light & Power (Customer) pursuant to the Joint Open Access Transmission Service Tariff filed on December 31, 1996 by Consumers and The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison).

The agreement has an effective date of May 5, 2000.

Copies of the filed agreement were served upon the Michigan Public Service Commission, Detroit Edison, and the Customer.

Comment date: June 20, 2000, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.