Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Notices 9469

Designations of written crossexamination should be served no later

than three working days before the

scheduled appearance of a witness.

Designations shall identify every item to

be offered as evidence, listing the

participant who initially posed the

discovery request, the witness and/or

party to whom the question was

addressed (if different from the witness

answering), the number of the request

and, if more than one answer is

provided, the dates of all answers to be

included in the record. (For example,

‘‘OCA-T1–17 to USPS witness Jones,

answered by USPS witness Smith

(March 1, 1997) as updated (March 21,

1997).’’ When a participant designates

written cross-examination, two copies of

the documents to be included shall

simultaneously be submitted to the

Secretary of the Commission.

The Secretary of the Commission

shall prepare for the record a packet

containing all materials designated for

written cross-examination in a format

that facilitates review by the witness

and counsel. The witness will verify the

answers and materials in the packet,

and they will be entered into the

transcript by the presiding officer.

Counsel for a witness may object to

written cross-examination at that time,

and any designated answers or materials

ruled objectionable will be stricken from

the record.

B. Oral cross-examination. Oral crossexamination will be permitted for

clarifying written cross-examination and

for testing assumptions, conclusions or

other opinion evidence. Requests for

permission to conduct oral crossexamination should be served three or

more working days before the

announced appearance of a witness and

should include (1) specific references to

the subject matter to be examined and

(2) page references to the relevant direct

testimony and exhibits.

Participants intending to use complex

numerical hypotheticals or to question

using intricate or extensive crossreferences, shall provide adequately

documented cross-examination exhibits

for the record. Copies of these exhibits

should be provided to counsel for the

witness at least two calendar days

(including one working day) before the

witness’s scheduled appearance.

5. General

Argument will not be received in

evidence. It is the province of the

lawyer, not the witness. It should be

presented in brief or memoranda. Legal

memoranda on matters at issue will be

welcome at any stage of the proceeding.

New affirmative matter (not in reply

to another party’s direct case) should

not be included in rebuttal testimony or

exhibits.

Cross-examination will be limited to

testimony adverse to the participant

conducting the cross-examination.

Library references may be submitted

when documentation or materials are

too voluminous reasonably to be

distributed. Each party should

sequentially number items submitted as

library references and provide each item

with an informative title. Parties are to

file and serve a separate Notice of Filing

of Library Reference(s). Library material

is not evidence unless and until it is

designated and sponsored by a witness.

NOTICE TO INTERVENORS

Beginning with MC96–2, the Postal

Rate Commission embarked on an effort

to experiment with the electronic filing

of case-related documents. A substantial

number of intervenors participated in

the experiment with varying results.

Some had transmission problems, some

had computer hardware problems, and

some had compatibility and corrupt file

problems. While the Commission was

able to solve or resolve most of these

problems, some of them still remain. In

addition, the recent overload on the

Internet has made e-mail transmissions

unreliable. Thus, the Commission has

decided that as of today, Tuesday,

February 4, 1997, it will suspend the

filing of documents by e-mail.

The Commission, however, hopes to

continue electronic communication and

is studying new technologies in the

hope that electronic communication

between the Commission and

intervenors will become a workable

reality in the near future. Pursuant to

these efforts, the Commission is

adopting as a standard type font Arial

12, which is the most compatible with

the Commission’s current and future

electronic needs.

Therefore, with respect to filings in

docketed cases, parties now are advised

to proceed as follows:

1. Consistent with past practices,

parties choosing hard copy filing should

send 1 (one) original and 24 (twentyfour) hard copies of each filing to the

Commission’s docket room.

2. For those with the capacity to use

diskettes, diskettes will continue to be

accepted at the Commission so long as

the copy is typed in Arial 12 and copied

in either Word Perfect 5.1 or any version

of Word. If sending a diskette, the party

need file only 1 (one) original and 3

(three) hard copies with the

Commission. In addition, all material

sent by diskette in the required format

will be placed on the Commission’s

Home Page (www.prc.gov).

3. All documents filed by the

Commission and the Office of Consumer

Advocate will be served in hard copy

and be placed on the Commission’s

Home Page. The Commission’s Daily

Listing of Documents Received will also

be placed on the Home Page. Documents

of excessive length will be zipped and

downloading instructions will be

included with such files.

4. For those having questions about

electronic operations, the Commission’s

computer administrator, Brenda Lamka,

can be reached at 202–789–6873.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4986 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[File No. 500–1]

Twenty First Century Health, Inc.,

Order of Suspension of Trading

February 27, 1997.

On February 10, 1997, the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) issued an Order

pursuant to Section 12(k) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

suspending trading in the securities of

Twenty First Century Health, Inc.

(‘‘TFCH’’) for ten days. Since then,

TFCH has made several public

announcements concerning the

Commission’s investigation and

business developments at the issuer. It

appears to the Commission that as a

result of those new events and

circumstances that there are additional

and separate questions concerning the

adequacy of publicly disseminated

information concerning TFCH,

including:

(1) The accuracy and reliability of

certain press releases issued by TFCH

since the first trading suspension was

ordered on February 10, including: (a)

the business and current customers of

Modern Tea Ball Services, Inc. and a

related business that TFCH announced

on February 14, 1997 it intended to

acquire; (b) the effectiveness and

marketability of a new line of liquid

colloidal nutritional supplements

announced by TFCH on February 13,

1997; (c) the accuracy of TFCH’s

statements concerning its plans to

distribute those supplements; (d) the

existence, status and likelihood of

success of plans to complete an initial

public offering of securities by an

affiliated entity that TFCH announced it

planned to have underwritten by
9470 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Notices

1See letters from Karen A. Aluise, Assistant Vice

President, BSE, to Michael Walinskas, Senior

Special Counsel, Market Regulation, Commission,

dated February 10, 1997 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’) and

February 13, 1997 (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’)

respectively.

2Proposed paragraph (a) states that specialists

will guarantee execution on all agency market and

Investors Associates, Inc., a New Jersey

broker-dealer; and

(2) The accuracy of TFCH’s February

12, 1997 pubic announcement that it

‘‘welcomes’’ the Commission’s inquiry,

offers ‘‘full cooperation’’ and states that

company officials would be able to

provide the Commission with the

information it requires within nine

days, when Joe Davis, who is TFCH’s

president, Loretta Davis, who was its

founder and formerly its president, and

Barclay Davis, who formerly was its

secretary and director but who

continues to act on behalf of TFCH,

have all stated through counsel that they

refuse to testify in the investigation in

reliance on their Fifth Amendment

privileges against self-incrimination.

The Commission is of the opinion that

the public interest and the protection of

investors require a suspension of trading

in the securities of the above-listed

company.

Therefore, it is ordered pursuant to

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934, that trading in the above

listed company is suspended for the

period from 9:00 a.m. EST, February 27,

1997, through 11:59 p.m. EST, March

12, 1997.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5279 Filed 2–27–97; 1:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–38331; File No. SR–BSE–

96–10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.

Relating to Amending the Execution

Guarantee Rule and BEACON Rule 5

February 24, 1997.

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

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

hereby given that on December 1, 1996,

the Boston Stock Exchange,

Incorporated (‘‘BSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which Items

have been prepared by the selfregulatory organization. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons. The

Exchange also filed Amendment Nos. 1

and 2 on February 14 and 19, 1997,

respectively, the substance of which is

incorporated into this notice.1

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

BSE proposes to amend Chapter II,

Section 33, the Execution Guarantee

Rule (‘‘Execution Guarantee Rule’’), and

Chapter XXXIII, Section 5, the Boston

Exchange Automated Communication

Order-Routing Network (‘‘BEACON

System’’) Rule (‘‘BEACON Rule 5’’).

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 Section

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

The main purpose of the proposed

rule change is to amend certain

provisions of the Execution Guarantee

Rule and BEACON Rule 5. The

Execution Guarantee Rule was adopted

to provide customers with primary

market price protection on small size

orders. The Exchange states that the

guarantee was intended to apply to

orders ranging in size from 100 shares

up to and including 1,299 shares,

regardless of the displayed bid or offer

size at the time. Orders over 1,299

shares were not intended to receive a

partial execution of 1,299 shares, but

were to be handled based on prints in

the primary market. The proposed rule

change is designed to clarify that BSE

specialists must guarantee execution on

all agency market and marketable limit

orders from 100 up to and including

1,299 shares. The current language of

the Execution Guarantee Rule indicates

that this guarantee applies ‘‘regardless

of the size of the order.’’ The Exchange

is proposing to delete this phrase. The

Exchange states that in drafting the

original text of the rule, the phrase

‘‘regardless of the size of the order’’ was

incorrectly stated.

The proposed rule change also

eliminates the 2,500 execution

guarantee for most actively traded

stocks (‘‘MATS’’) from the Execution

Guarantee Rule. The Exchange believes

that market conditions should dictate

the appropriate execution size for a

customer order in a given trading

situation. The Exchange believes that

because market conditions do not

always provide a 2,500 share liquidity

level in the MATS issues, it is

appropriate to allow natural liquidity

level in the MATS issues, it is

appropriate to allow natural liquidity

levels to establish price and size

parameters on larger orders. In addition,

the Exchange notes that it has never

received a customer complaint

regarding the failure of a specialist to

honor the 2,500 share MATS guarantee.

The Exchange believes that this is most

likely because customers do not expect

or receive an execution where market

conditions do not so warrant and that

because of this the elimination of the

MATS requirement from the execution

guarantee will have no impact.

The proposed rule change moves rule

text covering the obligation for filling

limit orders from the Interpretations and

Policies section to the body of the

Execution Guarantee Rule and labels it

as paragraph (c). The proposed rule

change also renumbers and clarifies the

remaining Interpretations and Policies

to the Execution Guarantee Rule. The

proposed rule change clarifies proposed

Interpretation and Policy .03 of the

Execution Guarantee Rule regarding

simultaneous orders to limit a

specialist’s obligation to the

accumulated displayed national best bid

and offer (‘‘NBBO’’) size, where

multiple orders are received in a short

period of time, particularly in illiquid

stocks. The Exchange notes that the

original language was adopted prior to

electronic order routing and did not

anticipate the high volume of today’s

electronic trading environment.

The proposed rule change limits the

scope of proposed Interpretation and

Policy .04, which says that size will be

governed by the size displayed on the

Consolidated Quote System (‘‘CQS’’), to

limit order executions. The Exchange

states that proposed Interpretation and

Policy .04 is restricted to limit orders

because market orders are already

addressed in proposed paragraphs (a)

and (b) of the Execution Guarantee

Rule.2 The Exchange proposes two