Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 1997 / Notices 47865

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1See Letter from Philip H. Becker, Senior Vice

President and Chief Regulatory Officer, Phlx, to

Michael Walinskas, Senior Special Counsel,

Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated August

1, 1997 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). The substance of

amendment No. 1 has been incorporated into this

notice.

2The PACE Quote consists of the best bid/offer

among the American Stock Exchange (‘‘Amex’’),

New York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’), Pacific

Exchange, Phlx, Boston, Cincinnati, and Chicago

Stock Exchanges, as well as the Intermarket Trading

System/Computer Assisted Execution System

(‘‘ITS/CAES’’). See PACE Rule.

3A market order is an order to buy or sell a stated

amount of a security at the best price obtainable

when the order is received. A marketable limit

order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of

a security at a specified price, which is received at

a time when the market is trading at or better than

such specified price.

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the

submissions, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

changes that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule changes between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the

respective filing swill also be available

for inspection and copying at the

respective principal offices of OCC and

NSCC. All submissions should refer to

File Nos. SR–OCC–97–17 and SR–

NSCC–97–12 and should be submitted

by October 2, 1997.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,11 that the

proposed rule changes (File Nos. SR–

OCC–97–17 and SR–NSCC–97–12) be

and hereby are approved.

For the Commission by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.12

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24134 Filed 9–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39000; File No. SR–Phlx–

97–23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

Relating to the Treatment of PACE

Orders in Double-up/Double-Down Tick

Situations

September 2, 1997.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 78s(c)(1), notice is

hereby given that on May 2, 1997, the

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

(‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule

change, and on August 4, 1997 filed

with the Commission Amendment No. 1

thereto,1 as described in Items I, II, and

III below, which Items have been

prepared by the self-regulatory

organization. The Commission is

publishing this notice to solicit

comments on the proposed rule change

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The Phlx, pursuant to Rule 19b–4 of

the Act, proposes to adopt paragraph (c)

to Supplementary Material .07 of Rule

229, Philadelphia Stock Exchange

Automatic Communication and

Execution (‘‘PACE’’) System, relating to

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement and manual double-up/

double-down price protection. The

operation of the PACE System, which is

the Exchange’s automatic order routing

and execution system for equity

securities, is governed by Phlx Rule 229

(‘‘PACE Rule’’).

Proposed paragraph (c)(i), Automatic

Double-up/Double-down Price

Improvement, would state that where

the specialist voluntarily agrees to

provide automatic double-up/doubledown price improvement to all

customers and all eligible orders in a

security, in any instance where the bid/

ask spread of the PACE Quote 2 is a 1⁄4

point or greater, market and marketable

limit orders 3 in NYSE-listed or Amexlisted securities for 599 shares or less

that are received through PACE in

double-up/double-down situations shall

be provided with automatic price

improvement of 1⁄8 of a point, beginning

at 9:45 a.m. Moreover, a specialist

voluntarily may agree to provide

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement to larger orders in a

particular security to all customers

under this provision. Automatic doubleup/double-down price improvement

will not occur where the execution price

would be outside the primary market

high/low range for the day, if out-ofrange protection was elected by the

member organization entering the order

pursuant to Supplementary Material

.07(a) of the PACE Rule. In addition, the

Exchange proposes to adopt a corollary

provision in Supplementary Material

.10(a) to the PACE Rule respecting

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement for marketable limit

orders.

The Exchange also proposes to adopt

an alternative to automatic double up/

double-down price improvement.

Specifically, proposed Supplementary

Material .07(c)(ii), Manual Double-up/

Double-down Price Protection would

state that where the specialist does not

agree to provide automatic double-up/

double-down price improvement in a

security, in any instance where the bid/

ask spread of the PACE Quote is 1⁄8 of

a point or greater, beginning at 9:45

a.m., the specialist must provide manual

double-up/double-down price

protection to all customers and all

eligible orders in a security. The manual

double-up/double-down price

protection feature causes eligible market

and marketable limited orders of 599

shares or less in NYSE-listed and Amexlisted securities that are received

through PACE in double-up/doubledown situations to be stopped at the

PACE Quote at the time of their entry

into PACE. Moreover, a specialist may

voluntarily agree to provide manual

double-up/double-down price

protection to larger orders in a

particular security to all customers

under this provision. However, if the

execution price of an order would be

outside the primary market high/low

range for the day, where out-of-range

protection is elected by the member

organization entering the order, the

order would be stopped for manual

handling by the specialist, regardless of

the existence of a double-up/doubledown situation. Manual double-up/

double-down price protection does not

provide an automatic execution or

automatic price improvement. Instead,

this feature stops orders to provide an

opportunity for manual price

improvement in double-up/doubledown situations.

Finally, proposed paragraph (c)(iii)

would provide that both automatic

double-up/double-down price

improvement and manual double-up/

double-down price protection may be

disengaged in a security or floorwide in

extraordinary circumstances with the

approval of two Floor Officials of the

Exchange.
47866 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 1997 / Notices

4The Commission recently approved a number of

amendments to the execution parameters and

guarantees of the PACE Rule. See Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 38898 (August 1, 1997),

62 FR 42616 (August 7, 1997) (File No. SR–Phlx–

97–11).

5The Exchange recently has filed a proposed rule

change to amend this provision to increase the

duration of the POES window to 30 seconds. See

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38864 (July 23,

1997), 62 FR 40882 (July 30, 1997) (File No. SR–

Phlx–97–32).

6The first down tick was from 321⁄2 to 323⁄8, and

the second down tick would have been from 323⁄8

to 321⁄4 had the order been executed. The

intervening sale at 323⁄8 does not change this result.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

In its filing with the Commission, the

self-regulatory organization included

statements concerning the purpose of

and basis for the proposed rule change

and discussed any comments it received

on the proposed rule change. The text

of these statements may be examined at

the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has

prepared summaries, set forth in

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

a. Background. As stated above, the

PACE System is the Exchange’s

automated order routing and execution

system on its equity trading floor. The

PACE System accepts orders for

automatic or manual execution in

accordance with the provisions of the

PACE Rule, which governs the

operation of the PACE System and

defines its objectives and parameters.

Agency orders received through PACE

are subject to certain minimum

execution parameters and non-agency

orders are subject to the provisions of

Supplementary Material .02 of the PACE

Rule. The PACE Rule establishes

execution parameters for order

depending on type (market or limit),

size, and the guarantees offered by

specialists.4

With respect to market orders,

Supplementary Material .05 of the PACE

Rule currently provides that round-lot

market orders up to 500 shares and

partial round-lot (‘‘PRL’’) market orders

of up to 599 shares, which combine a

round-lot with an odd-lot, are stopped

at the PACE Quote at the time of their

entry into PACE (‘‘Stop Price’’) for a 15

second delay to provide the Phlx

specialist with the opportunity to effect

price improvement when the spread

between the PACE Quote exceeds 1⁄8 of

a point. This feature is known as the

Public Order Exposure System

(‘‘POES’’) ‘‘window.5 If such orders are

not executed within the POES window,

the order is automatically executed at

the Stop Price.

b. Automatic double-up/double-down

price improvement. At this time, the

Exchange proposes to adopt a doubleup/double-down provision respecting

PACE orders. The proposal consists of

two alternatives: automatic double-up/

double-down price improvement and

manual double-up/double-down price

protection. Thus, one purpose of the

proposal is to provide automatic price

improvement to eligible orders. As part

of a continued effort to improve its

execution parameters and promote the

principle of best execution, the

Exchange is proposing to adopt an

automatic price improvement feature

affording eligible orders price

improvement of an 1⁄8 of a point from

the PACE Quote when received, in

double-up/double-down situations.

Under the proposal, a ‘‘double-up/

double-down’’ situation is defined as a

trade that would be at least: (i) 1⁄4 point

(up or down) from the last regular way

sale on the primary market; or (ii) 1⁄4

point from the regular way sale that was

the previous intra-day change on the

primary market. The term ‘‘double’’

originated with two 1⁄8 point ticks,

meaning 1⁄4 of a point. Under the

proposal, a down tick of 1⁄16 of a point

followed by a down tick of 3⁄16 of a point

would be a double-down situation,

because it equals 1⁄4 of a point.

As an example of the part (i) of the

definition of a double-up/double-down

situation, assuming that the specialist

has agreed to participate in this feature,

where the PACE Quote is 221⁄2–223⁄4, if

the last sales on the primary market

were 223⁄4 followed by a down tick at

225⁄8, a double-up/double-down

situation would not occur for a market

order to buy, because buying at 223⁄4 is

a single up tick of 1⁄8 of a point and,

thus, does not meet the 1⁄4 point

requirement. Under the proposal,

because no double-up/double-down

situation occurred, no automatic price

improvement would be afforded.

However, applying part (ii) of the

definition, a double-up/double-down

situation would occur for a sell order,

because a sale at 221⁄2 is a 1⁄4 point away

from the next to last intra-day change,

executed at 223⁄4. Under the proposal,

the market order to sell would be

automatically executed at 225⁄8,

providing an 1⁄8 point price

improvement over the otherwiseautomatic execution at 221⁄2.

Where the PACE Quote is 221⁄4–223⁄4,

with the last sale at 221⁄2, part (i) of the

definition would apply to a market

order to buy or sell, because buying at

223⁄4 creates a double-up tick (1⁄4 of a

point away from 221⁄2) and selling at

221⁄4 creates a double-down tick (also 1⁄4

of a point away from 221⁄2).

If the last sale was at 223⁄4 and the

next-to-last sale was at 221⁄2, part (i) of

the definition would apply to a market

order to sell, because selling at 221⁄4

creates a double-down tick (1⁄2 of a point

away from 223⁄4), and part (ii) of the

definition would apply to a buy order,

because buying at 223⁄4, although not an

up or down tick from the last sale of

223⁄4, is 1⁄4 of a point away from the next

to last change, executed at 221⁄2.

If the last sale was at 225⁄8 and the

next to last sale was at 221⁄2, part (ii) of

the definition would apply to a market

order to buy, because buying at 223⁄4

creates a double-up tick of (1⁄4 of a point

away) from 221⁄2, as well as to a market

order to sell, because selling at 221⁄4

creates a double-down tick (1⁄4 of a point

away) from 221⁄2.

Pursuant to part (ii) of the definition

of a double-up/double-down situation,

this term includes qualifying changes

from the last change, not just the two

previous last sales. For example, where

the last sales on the primary market

were: 321⁄2; 323⁄8; and 323⁄8, with the

PACE Quote at 321⁄4–321⁄2, a market

order to sell that would otherwise be

executable at 321⁄4 should be priceimproved to 323⁄8, because it is a

double-down tick (1⁄4 of a point away)

from the last ‘‘change’’ or sale that was

the previous change (meaning the

change from 221⁄2 to 223⁄8).6 Under part

(i) of the definition, this order would

not qualify as a double-up/double-down

situation, because an execution at 221⁄4

would be only 1⁄8 of a point away from

the last sale of 223⁄8.

To explain the interaction between

the POES window and the proposal at

hand, assuming that the PACE Quote is

151⁄2–3⁄4 and the last sale was at 151⁄2,

an order by buy 500 shares would be

subject to automatic double-up/doubledown price improvement, because

buying at 153⁄4 creates a double up tick

(1⁄4 of a point away) from the last sale

at 151⁄2. The order would be

automatically executed under the

proposal at 155⁄8 (giving 1⁄8 of a point

price improvement over the PACE

Quote of 153⁄4) and no POES window

would occur. The proposed automatic

double-up/double-down price

improvement feature results in an

automatic execution, with no window,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 1997 / Notices 47867

7See Phlx Rule 203(d).

8The current double-up/down price protection

feature has been in use since 1991. If elected by the

entering member organization in a security selected

by the specialist as eligible for this feature, orders

within the specialist’s automatic execution

guarantee size are stopped in double-up/down

situations.

timer or delay. If, on the other hand, the

order was to sell 500 shares, a doubleup/double-down situation would not

occur, because selling at 151⁄2 is not an

up or down tick (not 1⁄4 of a point away

from the last sale); this order would be

POES-eligible such that the POES

window would apply. At the expiration

of the POES window, absent manual

specialist intervention, this order would

be manually executed at 151⁄2, its Stop

Price.

This proposal would also apply to

marketable limit orders. As an example,

assuming that the specialist has agreed

to participate in the automatic doubleup/double-down price improvement

feature, where the PACE Quote is 151⁄2–

153⁄4, and the last sale was at 151⁄2, an

order to buy 500 shares at 153⁄4 would

be subject to automatic double-up/

double-down price improvement,

because buying at 153⁄4 creates a double

up tick (1⁄4 of a point away) from the last

sale at 151⁄2. The order to buy 500 shares

at 153⁄4 is a marketable limit order,

because it is executable on the offer.

Under this proposal, this order would

be automatically executed at 155⁄8,

receiving price improvement of 1⁄8 of a

point.

The Exchange notes that the

execution resulting from the automatic

price improvement feature can create a

double-up/double-down situation; for

instance, where the PACE Quote is 31–

321⁄4 and the last sale was at 323⁄8, a sell

order that would be executable at 32

would be improve to 321⁄8, which is a

double-down tick (1⁄4 point from 323⁄8 to

321⁄8).

The Exchange proposes to clarify that

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement will not occur where the

execution price before or after the

application of automatic price

improvement would be outside the

primary market high/low range for the

day, if so elected by the entering

member organization. The following

example illustrates how the execution

price before automatic price

improvement can be out-of-range.

Where the low for the day is 221⁄4 and

the high is 221⁄2, the last sale was at

223⁄8 and the PACE Quote is 225⁄8–227⁄8,

an incoming sell order executable at

225⁄8 would be stopped due to out-ofrange protection (i.e., an execution at

225⁄8 would have been at a price above

the 221⁄2 high for the day) and thus

would not be subject to automatic price

improvement (to 223⁄4, which also

would have been out-of-range). An

execution at 225⁄8 would have created a

double-up/double-down situation,

because 225⁄8 is 1⁄4 of a point away from

the last sale at 223⁄8.

The next example illustrates how the

execution price could be out-of-range as

a result of automatic price

improvement. Where the low for the day

is 221⁄4 and the high is 225⁄8, the last sale

was at 223⁄8 and the PACE Quote is

225⁄8–227⁄8, an incoming sell order

executable at 225⁄8 would not be

improved to 223⁄4, because such price

would be out-of-range (i.e., an execution

at 223⁄4 would have been at a price

above the 225⁄8 high for the day).

Instead, the order would revert to

manual status, and the specialist would

either stop the order or execute it at

225⁄8. Absent out-of-range protection,

the 225⁄8 execution would have been a

double-up situation (1⁄4 of a point away

from the last sale of 223⁄8).

The Exchange is proposing to extend

its price improvement initiative to

double-up/double-down situations,

because these are particularly suitable

for price improvement. Specifically,

when the current market is 1⁄4 of a point

away from the last sale price, with this

trend continuing, as evidenced by

consecutive up or down ticks, it is

consistent with the role of the specialist

to enter into stabilizing transactions on

behalf of public customers.7 Instead of

affording an automatic execution at the

PACE Quote, the proposal results in an

automatic execution that improves on

that price by an 1⁄8 of a point. Thus,

automatically executed orders continue

to receive the important benefits of

speedy automatic execution and

reporting, while also receiving price

improvement. Heretofore, price

improvement was synonymous with

delay. Now, price improvement would

be automatic for eligible orders. The

proposal enables specialist to extend

this innovative price improvement

procedure to larger orders.

The Exchange has determined that, as

with many PACE features and

participation in the PACE System itself,

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement should be made available

on a voluntary, symbol-by-symbol basis,

so that specialists can determine which

securities are suitable for the program.

The availability of a price improvement

feature benefits the specialist function,

especially in high-volume securities,

where stopping orders and manual

intervention are time-consuming, delay

execution and do not necessarily result

in price improvement. The proposed

feature triggers a superior result—an

immediate automatic execution, with no

specialist intervention or delay.

c. Manual double-up/double-down

price protection. Second, the Exchange

proposes to adopt a manual double-up/

double-down price protection provision

as Supplemental Paragraph .07(c)(ii) of

the PACE Rule. Currently, a form of

such price protection is a feature of the

Pace System, but is neither mandatory,

nor available in all securities.8 Nor has

it been incorporated into Exchange

rules. Thus, the Exchange is proposing

to replace the existing voluntary feature

with the proposed mandatory feature.

This aspect of the proposal is intended

to require a double-up/double-down

feature of specialists who do not choose

to participate in the automatic price

improvement feature.

Manual price protection is proposed

to be a mandatory requirement floorwide in all Phlx non-primary PACEeligible stocks. Manual price protection

would apply in 1⁄8 point-wide markets

or greater; thus, unlike automatic price

improvement, which is triggered by 1⁄4

point-wide markets, a 3⁄16 point-wide

market would trigger manual price

protection.

The proposed manual double-up/

double-down price protection provision

would stop eligible orders for an

opportunity for manual price

improvement by the specialist. Under

this proposal, an order would be

‘‘stopped’’ by the specialist at the PACE

Quote at the time of its entry into PACE,

meaning that the order is guaranteed to

receive at least that price by the end of

the trading day. Consistent with Phlx

Floor Procedure Advice A–2, specialists

are required to display stopped orders at

the improved price and any contra-side

orders received by the specialist will be

taken into account for purposes of

determining when to execute a stopped

order and at what price. The purpose of

stopping an order is to seek a better

price for the order, by probing the

market further or facilitating the order

in a proprietary account at that better

price.

Thus, the purpose of a manual price

protection provision is to provide an

alternative double-up/double-down

feature, which allows for price

improvement, albeit not automatic, for

securities which the specialist has

determined are not appropriate for the

automatic feature, due to, for example,

liquidity, trading patterns and volatility.

Less liquid stocks may trade in sizes

that render it unfair to specialists to

afford automatic price improvement to

such orders and manage the resulting

positions. The reference to trading
47868 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 1997 / Notices

9The Exchange also notes that all stocks on the

CHX are not eligible for SuperMAX, the CHX’s

automatic price improvement program. Article XX,

Rule 37(c) of the CHX Rules states that specialists

may choose to participate on a stock-for-stock basis.

10 15 U.S.C. § 78(f).

11 15 U.S.C. § 78k–1. 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

patterns may cover stocks where the

spread between the bid and offer is very

narrow, with little trading occurring

between such bid/offer spread, or very

wide, with most trading on the bid/

offer. Low volatility stocks may not be

appropriate for automatic price

improvement, because little movement

in the stock may also indicate little

trading in between the bid/offer.

Recognizing that not all stocks should

be treated the same, the Exchange notes

that different automatic execution sizes

are permissible under the PACE Rule

(with a minimum of 599 shares).9 The

Exchange believes that offering an

opportunity for manual price

improvement promotes the goal of best

execution on the Phlx.

d. Both features. For both automatic

price improvement and manual price

protection, specialists may establish

higher sizes than the 599 share

minimum (but less than or equal to the

specialist’s automatic execution

guarantee), which may be changed

effective the next day. Member

organizations entering PACE orders

(‘‘PACE Users’’) will be notified of any

such changes.

Specialists choosing to activate the

automatic feature would also be subject

to the procedure described above (i.e., it

would become effective the next day). In

addition, switching between the

automatic and manual features triggers

this procedure. Signing up for the

manual price protection feature is not

required, because all specialists will be

required to participate.

The Exchange notes that PACE Users

may choose whether to receive the

protections offered by the double-up/

double-down features (both, not a

particular one). In reality, most PACE

Users today have elected to receive at

least manual protection, which is

proposed to be mandatory for all

specialists. However, some PACE Users

may determine not to participate in

either double-up/double-down feature.

For instance, a PACE User may

determine that the certainty and speed

of an automatic execution—a factor in a

broker-dealer’s decision respecting best

execution obligations—outweigh the

delay associated with being stopped for

potential manual price improvement.

The Exchange notes that odd-lots are

not eligible for either double-up/doubledown price improvement or price

protection. The Exchange also notes that

the double-up/double-down features are

available for orders that are eligible for

automatic execution only. For instance,

non-marketable limit orders and orders

exceeding a specialist’s automatic

execution guarantee are not eligible for

either feature, because the features

depend upon either stopping or

automatically improving orders

guaranteed a certain automatic

execution price.

Pursuant to proposed subparagraph

.07(c)(iii) to the PACE Rule, both

automatic double-up/double-down price

improvement and manual double-up/

double-down price protection may be

disengaged in a security or floor-wide in

extraordinary circumstances. In

addition to fast market conditions, for

purposes of this paragraph,

extraordinary circumstances also

include systems malfunctions and other

circumstances that limit the Exchange’s

ability to disseminate or update market

quotations in a timely and accurate

manner.

2. Statutory Basis

In sum, the Exchange believes that the

proposed price improvements features

enhance the many benefits of the PACE

System. For the reasons discussed

above, the Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change is consistent with

Section 6 of the Act in general,10 and in

particular, with Section 6(b)(5), in that

it is designed to promote just and

equitable principles of trade, remove

impediments to and perfect the

mechanism of a free and open market

and a national market system, as well as

to protect investors and the public

interest by providing an opportunity for

price improvement for eligible orders,

whether automatic or manual. In order

to champion the principle of best

execution, the Exchange has listened

and responded to its PACE customers

and members by developing these

innovation price improvement features.

The Exchange also believes that the

proposal is consistent with Section 11A

of the Act,11 and paragraph (a)(1)

thereunder, which encourages the use of

new data processing and

communication techniques that create

the opportunity for more efficient and

effective market operations.

Specifically, the proposal is consistent

with the public interest and investor

protection purposes of Section 11A, in

that it should assure the practicability of

executing customer orders in the best

market as well as an opportunity for

investors’ orders being executed without

the participation of a dealer.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Phlx does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

inappropriate burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either

solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. 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–Phlx–97–23

and should be submitted by October 2,

1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.12
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 1997 / Notices 47869

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24037 Filed 9–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements Under OMB Review

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements

submitted for review.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), agencies are required to

submit proposed reporting and

recordkeeping requirements to OMB for

review and approval, and to publish a

notice in the Federal Register notifying

the public that the agency has made

such a submission.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by October 14, 1997. If you intend to

comment but cannot prepare comments

promptly, please advise the OMB

Reviewer and the Agency Clearance

Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83–

1), supporting statement, and other

documents submitted to OMB for

review may be obtained from the

Agency Clearance Officer. Submit

comments to the Agency Clearance

Officer and the OMB Reviewer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Agency Clearance Officer: Jacqueline

White, Small Business Administration,

409 3rd Street, S.W., 5th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 20416, Telephone:

(202) 205–6629.

OMB Reviewer: Victoria Wassmer,

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20503.

Title: 8(A) Electronic Application

follow-up Survey.

Form No: N/A.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Description of Respondents: Potential

8(A) Applicants.

Annual Responses: 106.

Annual Burden: 17.6.

Dated: September 5, 1997.

Jacqueline White,

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–24160 Filed 9–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #2980]

State of Minnesota

As a result of the President’s major

disaster declaration on August 25, 1997,

I find that Anoka, Hennepin, Isanti,

Kandiyohi, Ramsey, Sherburne, and

Wright Counties in the State of

Minnesota constitute a disaster area due

to damages caused by severe storms,

high winds, tornadoes, and flooding

which occurred June 28–July 27, 1997.

Applications for loans for physical

damages may be filed until the close of

business on October 25, 1997, and for

loans for economic injury until the close

of business on May 26, 1998, at the

address listed below or other locally

announced locations: U.S. Small

Business Administration, Disaster Area

2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite

300, Atlanta, GA 30308.

In addition, applications for economic

injury loans from small businesses

located in the following contiguous

counties in Minnesota may be filed until

the specified date at the above location:

Benton, Carver, Chippewa, Chisago,

Dakota, Kanabec, McLeod, Meeker,

Mille Lacs, Pine, Pope, Renville, Scott,

Stearns, Swift, and Washington.

Physical damage: Percent

Homeowners with credit

available elsewhere .......... 8.000

Homeowners without credit

available elsewhere .......... 4.000

Businesses with credit available elsewhere .................. 8.000

Businesses and non-profit

organizations without

credit available elsewhere 4.000

Others (including non-profit

organizations) with credit

available elsewhere .......... 7.250

For Economic Injury:

Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives

without credit available

elsewhere .......................... 4.000

The number assigned to this disaster

for physical damage is 298011 and for

economic injury the number is 958200.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: September 4, 1997.

Bernard Kulik,

Associate Administrator for Disaster

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–24159 Filed 9–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Notice of Meeting of the Advisory

Committee for Trade Policy and

Negotiations

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the September 25,

1997, meeting of the Advisory

Committee for Trade Policy and

Negotiations will be held from 10 a.m.

to 2 p.m. The meeting will be closed to

the public from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and

open to the public from 1:30 p.m. to 2

p.m.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee for

Trade Policy and Negotiations will hold

a meeting on September 25, 1997 from

10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting will be

closed to the public from 10 a.m. to 1:30

p.m. The meeting will include a review

and discussion of current issues which

influence U.S. trade policy. Pursuant to

Section 2155(f)(2) of Title 19 of the

United States Code, I have determined

that this meeting will be concerned with

matters the disclosure of which would

seriously compromise the development

by the United States Government of

trade policy, priorities, negotiating

objectives or bargaining positions with

respect to the operation of any trade

agreement and other matters arising in

connection with the development,

implementation and administration of

the trade policy of the United States.

The meeting will be open to the public

and press from 1:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. when

trade policy issues will be discussed.

Attendance during this part of the

meeting is for observation only.

Individuals who are not members of the

committee will not be invited to

comment.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for

September 25, 1997, unless otherwise

notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Carlton Hotel in the Chandelier

Room, located at 16th and K Streets,

Washington, DC, unless otherwise

notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bill Daley, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, (202) 395–6120.

Charlene Barshefsky,

United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 97–24131 Filed 9–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M