Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40391

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3 In Amendment No. 1, the CBOE submitted to

the Commission the required report detailing open

interest and volume for the past year. See Letter

from Timothy H. Thompson, Senior Attorney,

CBOE, to Deborah Flynn, Attorney, Division of

Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), SEC, dated July 15,

1996 (‘‘CBOE Amendment No. 1’’).

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. N. Hickey,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–19801 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–O

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Submission of Information Collection

for OMB Review; Comment Request;

Procedures for PBGC Approval of

Multiemployer Plan Amendments

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for extension

of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting that

the Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’) extend approval, under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, of a

collection of information in its

regulation on Procedures for PBGC

Approval of Plan Amendments (29 CFR

part 4220). This notice informs the

public of the PBGC’s request and solicits

public comment on the collection of

information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by August 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of

Management and Budget, Attention:

Desk Officer for Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC

20503. The request for extension will be

available for public inspection at the

Communications and Public Affairs

Department of the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, suite 240, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20005–

4026, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on

business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, office of

the General Counsel, Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–

326–4024. (For TTY and TDD, call 800–

877–8339 and request connection to

202–326–4024).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC

administers the pension plan

termination insurance programs under

Title IV of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974, as

amended (‘‘ERISA’’). Section 4220 of

ERISA requires the plan sponsor of a

multiemployer pension plan covered by

Title IV of ERISA to submit for PBGC

review certain plan amendments

authorized by ERISA sections 4201

through 4219. Plan amendments under

those sections deal with modification of

the statutory provisions regarding when

a withdrawal from a multiemployer

plan occurs and how the withdrawing

employer’s withdrawal liability is

determined. Any such amendment is

effective only if, within 90 days after

receiving notice and a copy of the

amendment, the PBGC approves it or

fails to disapprove it. The PBGC may

disapprove an amendment only if it

determines that the amendment creates

an unreasonable risk of loss to plan

participants and beneficiaries or to the

PBGC.

The PBGC’s regulation on Procedures

for PBGC Approval of Plan

Amendments (29 CFR part 4220)

includes, in § 4220.3, rules for

requesting the PBGC’s approval of an

amendment. (The regulation may be

accessed on the PBGC’s home page at

http://www.pbgc.gov.) Section

4220.3(d) requires the submission of

information that the PBGC needs to

identify a plan and evaluate the risk of

loss, if any, posed by the amendment

(and, hence, determine whether it

should disapprove the amendment). The

regulation also permits submission of

other information that the plan sponsor

may consider pertinent to the request.

The collection of information under

the regulation has been approved by

OMB under control number 1212–0031.

The PBGC is requesting that OMB

extend its approval for three years. The

PBGC estimates that it receives three

submissions annually under the

regulation and that each submission

costs the submitting plan about $165 to

have prepared by an outside consultant,

for a total annual cost burden of $495.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of

July, 1997.

David M. Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–19812 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS

ANNOUNCEMENT: (62 FR 39040, July 21,

1997).

STATUS: Closed Meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: July 21,

1997.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Cancellation of

Meeting.

The closed meeting scheduled for

Thursday, July 24, 1997, at 3:00 p.m.,

has been cancelled.

At times, changes in Commission

priorities require alterations in the

scheduling of meeting items. For further

information and to ascertain what, if

any, matters have been added, deleted

or postponed, please contact: The Office

of the Secretary (202) 942–7070.

Dated: July 24, 1997.

Johnathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–19966 Filed 7–24–97; 3:31 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–38856; File Nos. SR-Amex97–24; SR–CBOE–97–31; SR–PCX–97–30;

and SR–Phlx–97–33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of Proposed

Rule Changes by the American Stock

Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc., Pacific

Exchange, Inc., and Philadelphia Stock

Exchange, Inc.; Relating to an

Extension of the 21⁄2 Point Strike Price

Pilot Program

July 21, 1997.

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 July 8,

1997, the American Stock Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘Amex’’); on July 10, 1997, the

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘CBOE’’); on July 10, 1997, the Pacific

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘PCX’’); and on July 10,

1997, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’) (collectively the

‘‘Exchanges’’) filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

changes as described in Items I and II

below, which Items have been prepared

by the Exchanges. The CBOE submitted

to the Commission Amendment No. 1 to

its proposal on July 17, 1997 3 and

Amendment No. 2 to its proposal on
40392 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

4 In amendment No. 2, the CBOE: 1) set forth the

allocation of the 100 option classes to be included

in the pilot program; 2) detailed the treatment of the

eleven classes selected for the pilot program by the

New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) prior to the

sale of its options business to the CBOE; and 3)

enclosed a memorandum from the Options Price

Reporting Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) stating that based on

the Exchange’s representations, additional traffic

generated by extending the 21⁄2 point strike pilot is

within OPRA’s capacity. See Letter from Timothy

H. Thompson, Senior Attorney, CBOE, to Deborah

Flynn, Attorney, Division, SEC, dated July 16, 1997

(‘‘CBOE Amendment No. 2’’).

5 In Amendment No. 1, the Amex clarified that

the pilot program will be extended until July 17,

1998 and discussed the allocation of the 100

options classes and the treatment of the eleven

classes selected by the NYSE. See Letter from Claire

P. McGrath, Vice President and Special Counsel,

Derivative Securities, Ames, to Ivette Lopez,

Assistant Director, Division, SEC, dated July 16,

1997 (‘‘Amex Amendment No. 1’’).

6See Letter Claire P. McGrath, Vice President and

Special Counsel, Derivative Securities, to Ivette

Lopez, Assistant Director, Division, SEC, dated July

17, 1997 (‘‘Amex amendment No. 2’’). In

Amendment No. 2, the Amex stated that the

Exchange has sufficient capacity to handle the

extension of the 2–1⁄2 strike price pilot program for

another year.

7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35993

(July 19, 1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995) (File

Nos. SR–Phlx–95–08, SR–Amex–95–12, SR–PSE–

95–07, SR–CBOE–95–19, SR–NYSE–95–12) (‘‘21⁄2

Point Strike Price Approval Order’’).

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37441

(July 15, 1996), 61 FR 38234 (July 23, 1996) (File

Nos. SR–Amex–96–24; SR–CBOE–96–41; SR–

NYSE–96–19; SR–PSE–96–18; and SR–Phlx–96–22)

(‘‘21⁄2 Point Strike Price Approval Order’’).

9The actual allotment of option issues for each

exchange as of July 1996 was: CBOE (28), Amex

(22), Phlx (18), PSE (18), and NYSE (14).

10The Commission believes that if the Exchanges

wish to modify the allocation agreement prior to the

expiration of this point program, they should

contact the Division to determine whether a Rule

19b–4 filing is required.

11See CBOE Amendment No. 2, supra note 4;

Amex Amendment No. 1, supra note 5; and Letters

from Michael D. Pierson, Senior Attorney,

Regulatory Policy, PCX, to Deborah Flynn,

Attorney, Division, SEC, dated July 16, 1997 and

Philip H. Becker, Senior Vice President, Senior Vice

President and Chief Regulatory Officer, Phlx to

Michael Walinskas, Senior Special Counsel,

Division, SEC, dated July 17, 1997.

12The actual allotment of options issues for each

exchange is: CBOE (31), Amex (25), Phlx (23), and

PCX (21).

13See CBOE Amendment No. 2, supra note 4;

Amex Amendment No. 1, supra note 5; See also

File Nos. SR–PCX–97–30 and SR–Phlx–97–33.

14 In the 21⁄2 Point Strike Price Extension Order,

the Commission required that each Exchange

submit a report before the Commission would

review a proposal to extend, expand or make

permanent the pilot program.

15See Letters from Thomas A. Wittman, Vice

President, Trading Systems, Phlx, to Michael

Walinskas, Senior Special Counsel, Division, SEC,

dated July 16, 1997 and Claire McGrath, Vice

President and Special Counsel, Derivative

Securities, Amex, to Ivette Lopez, Assistant

Director, Division, SEC, dated July 17, 1997. See

also File Nos. SR–CBOE–97–31 and SR–PCX–97–

30.

16See Letter from Joseph P. Corrigan, Executive

Director, OPRA, to Michael Walinskas, Senior

Special Counsel, Division, SEC, dated July 18, 1997

(‘‘OPA Capacity Statement’’).

July 17, 1997.4 The Amex submitted to

the Commission Amendment No. 1 to

its proposed rule change on July 21,

1997 5 and Amendment No. 2 to its

proposal on July 21, 1997.6 The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

changes from interested persons, and to

grant accelerated approval of the

proposed rule changes, as amended.

I. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Changes

The Exchanges propose to extend for

one-year (i.e., July 17 1998) the

Exchanges’ pilot program whereby the

Exchanges may select a limited number

of their listed options for inclusion in a

pilot program for the listing of strike

prices at 21⁄2 point intervals. The text of

the proposed rule changes is available at

the Office of the Secretary, the

Exchanges, and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Propose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Changes

In their filings are the Commission,

the Exchanges included statements

concerning the purpose of and basis for

the proposed rule changes. The text of

these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The Exchanges have prepared

summaries, set forth in sections A, B,

and C below, of the most significant

aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Changes

The Commission has previously

approved a pilot program proposed by

the Exchanges to list selected options

trading at a strike price greater than $25

but less than $50 at 21⁄2 point intervals

(i.e., 271⁄2, 321⁄2, 371⁄2, 421⁄2 and 471⁄2).7

Subsequently, the Commission

extended the pilot program for the

twelve month period ending July 18,

1997.8 Pursuant to the pilot program,

the Exchanges are permitted to use such

21⁄2 point strike price intervals for a

joint total of up to 100 option issues.

Ten options plus a percentage of the

remaining 50 options equal to each

exchange’s pro rata share of the total

number of equity options listed by the

Exchanges were allocated to each

exchange.9

Subsequent to the issuance of the 21⁄2

Point Strike Price Extension Order, the

NYSE sold its options programs to the

CBOE. As a result, the four remaining

options Exchanges have agreed upon a

new allocation 10 of the 100 classes for

purposes of the extension of the pilot

program.11 Under the new proposal,

each exchange would be allocated a

whole number of classes based on the

sum of the following: (1) one quarter of

the first 50 issues; and (2) a percentage

of the remaining 50 classes determined

by each exchange’s pro rata share of the

total number of equity option listings as

of July 1, 1997.12 The Exchanges also

have proposed that the eleven options

selected by the NYSE will continue to

be eligible for the pilot program, but

will not count against any exchange’s

allotment.13 However, these eleven

classes may not be replaced by another

selection in the event a class becomes

ineligible or is decertified.

As has been the case since the

inception of the 21⁄2 point strike price

pilot program, when more than one

exchange selects a multiply-traded

option for its allotment, the Options

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) will

determine which exchange will be

deemed to have selected the option

according to the procedures agreed

upon by the Exchanges. The Exchanges

have agreed that an exchange

(‘‘Selecting Exchange’’) intending to list

21⁄2 point strikes on an option will

inform OCC of its selection by

submitting a notice (‘‘Selection Notice’’)

to OCC between the hours of 8:30 a.m.

and 12:00 Noon (Central Time). In the

event that more than one exchange

submits a Selection Notice to the OCC

for the same multiply-traded option, the

exchange which first submits a

Selection Notice to the OCC will be

deemed to be the Selecting Exchange for

that option. Such option will count

toward the allotment of the Selecting

Exchange, but not toward the allotment

of any other exchange submitting a

Selection Notice under the terms of the

pilot program.

In addition, each of the Exchanges has

submitted a report to the Commission

that includes data and written analysis

regarding the operation of the pilot

program during the previous year, as

required in the 21⁄2 Strike Price

Extension Order.14 The Exchanges

generally believe that the pilot program

has provided customers greater

opportunities and flexibility to tailor

their options positions, while enhancing

the depth and liquidity of the markets

in the selected options classes. The

Exchanges 15 and the Options Price

Reporting Authority (‘‘OPRA’’) 16

represent that sufficient computer

processing capacity is available to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40393

17 15 U.S.C. 78f.

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

19 In approving this rule, the Commission notes

that it has considered the proposed rule’s impact on

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15

U.S.C. 78c(f).

20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

21See OPRA Capacity Statement, supra note 16.

22See supra note 15.

23The Commission notes that he proposed

treatment of the eleven options classes previously

selected for the 21⁄2 point strike pilot program by

the NYSE temporarily establishes a maximum of

111 eligible options.

24The Commission expects that each Exchange

will submit a proposed rule change at least two

months before the expiration of the pilot program

in the event the Exchanges wish to seek to extend,

expand or seek permanent approval of the pilot

program as noted above. 25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).

accommodate the extension of the 21⁄2

point strike price pilot program for

another year.

Each exchange has stated that it

believes its respective proposed rule

change is consistent with Section 6(b) of

the Act 17 in general and furthers the

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 18 in

particular in that the joint proposal is

designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to

promote just and equitable principles of

trade, and is not designed to permit

unfair discrimination between

customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

B. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchanges believe that the

proposed rule changes will impose no

burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organizations’

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Changes Received From

Members, Participants or Others

No written comments were solicited

or received with respect to the proposed

rule changes.

III. Commission’s Findings and Order

Granting Accelerated Approval

The Exchanges have requested

accelerated approval for their respective

proposals. The Commission finds that

the proposed rule changes, as amended,

are consistent with the requirements of

the Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange,19 and, in particular,

the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of

the Act.20 Specifically, the Commission

believes that the proposed extension of

the pilot program providing for the

listing of 21⁄2 point strike price intervals

in selected equity options will continue

to provide investors with more

flexibility in the trading of equity

options with a strike price greater than

$25 but less than $50, thereby furthering

the public interest by allowing investors

to establish equity options positions that

are better tailored to meet their

investment objectives. The Commission

also believes that the Exchanges’

proposal strikes a reasonable balance

between the Exchanges’ desire to

accommodate market participants by

offering a wide array of investment

opportunities and the need to avoid

excessive proliferation of options series.

The Commission expects the Exchanges

to continue to monitor the applicable

equity options activity closely to detect

any proliferation of illiquid options

series resulting from the narrower strike

price intervals and to act promptly to

remedy this situation should it occur.

The Commission notes that the

proposal allows the eleven options

classes previously selected by the NYSE

to continue to be eligible for the 21⁄2

point strike pilot program, but such

classes may not be replaced in the event

a class becomes either ineligible or is

decertified. The Commission further

notes that the proposal provides that

these eleven classes will not count

against the allotment of any of the

Exchanges. The Commission notes that

he proposed treatment of these eleven

options will allow investors to continue

to trade in 21⁄2 point strikes in these

options. Moreover, the Commission

believes that the proposed treatment of

the eleven options classes represents

only a marginal increase in the total

number of options classes eligible for

the pilot program. Consequently, the

Commission believes that the proposed

treatment of the eleven options classes

previously selected by the NYSE is

reasonable.

In addition, OPRA represents that

adequate computer processing capacity

to accommodate the additional strike

prices is currently available.21 The

Exchange also represent that their

current systems capacities are sufficient

to meet the expected demands of the

additional strike prices.22 Nonetheless,

the Commission expects the Exchanges

to continue to monitor the trading

volume associated with the additional

options series listed as a result of the

extension of the pilot program and the

effect of these additional series on the

capacity of the Exchanges’, OPRA’s and

vendors’ automated systems.

In the event the Exchanges propose to

(1) extend the pilot program beyond July

17, 1998, (2) expand the pilot program

beyond the 100 option classes,23 or (3)

seek permanent approval of the pilot

program, they should submit a report to

the Commission along with the filing of

such a proposal.24 The report should

cover the period from May 19, 1997 to

May 22, 1998 and should include data

and written analysis on the open

interest and trading volume in affected

series, and delisted options series (for

all strike price intervals) on the selected

pilot program option classes. The report

should also discuss any capacity

problems that may have arisen during

the pilot program and any other data

relevant to the analysis of the pilot

program, including an assessment of the

appropriateness of the 21⁄2 point strike

price intervals for the options selected

by the reporting exchange.

The Commission finds good cause for

approving the proposed rule changes,

including CBOE Amendment Nos. 1 and

2 and Amex Amendment Nos. 1 and 2,

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice of filing thereof

in the Federal Register. As mentioned

above, the Exchanges submitted

separate reports to the Commission that

include data and written analysis

regarding the operation of the pilot

program as required in the 21⁄2 Strike

Price Extension Order. The Commission

notes that the Exchanges have not

reported any significant problems with

the pilot program since its inception

and that the Exchanges will continue to

monitor the pilot program to ensure that

no problems arise. Moreover, the

Commission believes that the extension

of the pilot program on an accelerated

basis will provide the investing public

with the added flexibility provided by

21⁄2 point strike prices on an

uninterrupted basis. Finally, no adverse

comments have been received by the

Exchanges or the Commission

concerning the pilot program. Based on

the above, the Commission believes

good cause exists to approve the

extension of the pilot program through

July 17, 1998, on an accelerated basis.

Accordingly, the Commission believes

that granting accelerated approval of the

proposals is appropriate and consistent

with Sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b)(2) of the

Act.25

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are field with the

Commission, and all written

communication relating to the proposed

rule change between the Commission
40394 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices

26 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

27 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

and any person, other than those that

may be withheld from the public in

accordance with the provisions of 5

U.S.C. 552, will be available for

inspection and copying in the

Commission’s Public Reference Section,

450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20549. Copies of such filings will also

be available for inspection and copying

at the principal office of the Exchanges.

All submissions should refer to File

Nos. SR–Amex–97–24; SR–CBOE–97–

31; SR–PCX–97–30; and SR–Phlx–97–33

and should be submitted by August 18,

1997.

V. Conclusion

It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,26 that the

pilot program proposed by the

Exchanges (File Nos. SR–Amex–97–24;

SR–CBOE–97–31; SR–PCX–97–30; and

SR–Phlx–97–33), as amended, is

approved through July 17, 1998, on an

accelerated basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.27

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–19710 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Safety Performance Standards and

Research and Development Programs

Meetings

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

ACTION: Notice of NHTSA industry

meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

public meeting at which NHTSA will

answer questions from the public and

the automobile industry regarding the

agency’s vehicle regulatory program. In

addition, NHTSA will hold a separate

public meeting to describe and discuss

specific research and development

projects.

DATES: The Agency’s regular, quarterly

public meeting relating to its vehicle

regulatory program will be held on

September 18, 1997, beginning at 9:45

a.m. and ending at approximately 12:30

p.m. Questions relating to the vehicle

regulatory program must be submitted

in writing by August 25, 1997, to the

address shown below. If sufficient time

is available, questions received after

August 25 may be answered at the

meeting. The individual, group or

company submitting a question(s) does

not have to be present for the

question(s) to be answered. A

consolidated list of the questions

submitted by August 25, 1997, and the

issues to be discussed, will be

transmitted to interested persons by

September 15, 1997, and will be

available at the meeting. Also, the

agency will hold a second public

meeting September 17, devoted

exclusively to a presentation of research

and development programs. The

meeting is described more fully in a

separate announcement. The next

NHTSA vehicle regulatory program

meeting will take place on December 17,

1997 at the Clarion Inn Hotel, 9191

Wickham Road, in Romulus, MI.

ADDRESSES: Questions for the September

18, NHTSA Technical Industry Meeting,

relating to the agency’s vehicle

regulatory program, should be

submitted to Delia Gage, NPS–01,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Room 5401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590, Fax Number 202–366–4329. The

meeting will be held at the Tysons

Westpark Hotel, 8401 Westpark Drive,

in McLean, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Delia Gage, (202) 366–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA

holds this regular, quarterly meeting to

answer questions from the public and

the regulated industries regarding the

agency’s vehicle regulatory program.

Questions on aspects of the agency’s

research and development activities that

relate directly to ongoing regulatory

actions should be submitted, as in the

past, to the agency’s Safety Performance

Standards Office. The purpose of this

meeting is to focus on those phases of

NHTSA activities which are technical,

interpretative or procedural in nature.

Transcripts of these meetings will be

available for public inspection in the

NHTSA Technical Reference Section in

Washington, DC, within four weeks after

the meeting. Copies of the transcript

will then be available at ten cents a

page, (length has varied from 100 to 150

pages) upon request to NHTSA

Technical Reference Section, Room

5108, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. The Technical

Reference Section is open to the public

from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. We would

appreciate the questions you send us to

be organized by categories to help us to

process the questions into agenda form

more efficiently. Sample format as

follows:

I. Rulemaking

A. Crash avoidance

B. Crashworthiness

C. Other Rulemakings

II. Consumer Information

III. Miscellaneous

NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to

participants as necessary. Any person

desiring assistance of ‘‘auxiliary aids’’

(e.g., sign-language interpreter,

telecommunications devices for deaf

persons (TDDs), readers, taped texts,

brailled materials, or large print

materials and/or a magnifying device),

please contact Delia Gage on (202) 366–

1810, by COB August 25, 1997.

Issued: July 22, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–19773 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket Nos. 97–022; Notice 2, 97–023;

Notice 2, 97–032; Notice 2, 97–034; Notice

2]

Decision that Certain Nonconforming

Motor Vehicles are Eligible for

Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA

that certain nonconforming motor

vehicles are eligible for importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces

decisions by NHTSA that certain motor

vehicles not originally manufactured to

comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards are

eligible for importation into the United

States because they are substantially

similar to vehicles originally

manufactured for importation into and/

or sale in the United States and certified

by their manufacturers as complying

with the safety standards, and they are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to the standards.

DATES: These decisions are effective as

of the date of their publication in the

Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141 (a)(1)(A), a

motor vehicle that was not originally