38868 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Notices

21The stopped price will be the price at the time

the order was received in the MAX System,

consistent with CHX Rules for stopped orders.

22 If an order is ‘‘put on hold,’’ the existing CHX

Rules on order handling apply.

23 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

25 15 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1994).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4 (1997).

3Municipal Securities Information Library and

MSIL are registered trademarks of the Board. The

MSIL system, which was approved in Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 29298 (June 13, 1991), 56

FR 28194 (June 19, 1991, is a central facility

through which information about municipal

securities is collected, stored and disseminated.

4Rule G–36 requires underwriters to provide

copies of final official statements and advance

refunding documents within certain specified time

frames for most new issues issued since January 1,

1990.

5Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37361

(June 25, 1996), 61 FR 34463 (July 2, 1996).

6The backlog fee plus delivery costs for 1996 if

$7,000; 1995 is $9,000; 1994 is $7,000; 1993 is

$9,000; 1992 is $7,000; 1991 is $8,000; 1990 is

$6,000. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.

38694 (May 29, 1997), 62 FR 30919 (June 5, 1997)

(1996 fee); Securities Exchange Act Release No.

37361 (June 25, 1996), 61 FR 34463 (July 2, 1996)

(1995 fee); Securities Exchange Act Release No.

35848 (June 14, 1995), 60 FR 32187 (June 20, 1995)

(1994 Fee); Securities Exchange Act Release No.

34602 (Aug. 25, 1994), 59 FR 45319 (Sept. 1, 1994)

(1993 and 1991 fees); and Securities Exchange Act

Release No.32482 (June 16, 1993), 58 FR 34115

(June 23, 1993) (1992 and 1990 fees). The fees for

the backlog collections vary based on the number

of documents received and processed in any given

year.

general, to protect investors and the

public interest.

The Commission believes that the

proposal to add the functionality to the

MAX System to automatically stop

unexecuted market orders and

marketable limit orders will provide

investors additional benefits. First,

specialists will now have the ability to

automatically stop marketable limit

order which provides investors with

improved opportunities for price

improvement on these orders. Second,

investors trading in Dual Trading

System issues will be provided with

more certainty as to the status of their

orders because the auto-stop feature

results in a message being sent to the

order sending firm notifying that firm

that the order has been stopped.21

Third, investors may receive improved

executions on their orders because, once

auto-stopped, the entire order (up to 599

shares) in Dual Trading System issues

will now be guaranteed an execution at

the stopped price, regardless of whether

it is an eligible professional market

order or an order greater than the size

of the ITS BBO.

The Commission believes that the

proposed 30 second ‘‘pending autostop’’ period prior to the order being

automatically stopped was designed to

provide specialists with an opportunity

to determine the best course for the

order, consistent with best execution

principles, whether that be executing

the order, manually stopping the order,

canceling the order, or putting the order

on hold.22 The Commission, however,

expects the Exchange, as it gains

experience with the auto-stop feature, to

review whether the ‘‘pending auto-stop’’

period should be less than 30 seconds.

In addition, the Commission anticipates

that the Exchange will surveil to

determine that specialists are not

eluding the auto-stop feature, and

thereby the benefits to investors, by

routinely putting orders on hold or

canceling them.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the

Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with the Act

and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange. In addition, in

approving this rule, the Commission

notes that it has also considered the

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency,

competition, and capital formation.23

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,24 that the

proposed rule change (CHX–98–01) be,

and hereby is, approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.25

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19182 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–40195; File No. SR–MSRB–

98–7]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness

of Proposed Rule Change by the

Municipal Securities Rulemaking

Board Relating to Fee for Backlog

Document Collection of its Official

Statement/Advance Refunding

Document Subsystem of the Municipal

Securities Information Library

July 13, 1998.

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 June 16,

1998, the Municipal Securities

Rulemaking Board (‘‘Board’’ or

‘‘MSRB’’) filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

a proposed rule change is described in

Items I, II, III below, which Items have

been prepared by the Board. 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 Board is filing herewith a

proposed rule change to change certain

fees relating to the operation of its

Official Statement/Advance Refunding

Document (‘‘OS/ARD’’) subsystem of the

Municipal Securities Information

Library (‘‘MSIL’’) system.3 The Board

is establishing a price of $8,000 (plus

delivery or postage charges) of each of

its annual ‘‘backlog’’ collections of

official statements and refunding

documents.

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

Board included statements concerning

the purpose of, and basis for, the

purposed rule change and discussed any

comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The texts of these

statements may be examined at the

places specified in Item IV below. The

U.S. 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 Purposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The OS/ARD subsystem is a central

electronic facility through which

information collected and stored

pursuant to MSRB Rule G–36 is made

available electronically and in paper

form to market participants and

information vendors.4 The annual

subscription fee for daily electronic

images of current year documents from

the OS/ARD system currently is

$14,000.5 The fees for backlog document

collections are substantially less than

fees for an annual subscription because

an annual subscription requires the

Board to send electronic media to the

subscriber each business day, but a

backlog collection requires fewer

resources.6

As of January 1, 1998, the Board

terminated its contract with its imaging

contractor and began operating the

Board’s own imaging subsystem. Part of

this change was to begin storing OS/

ARD images on CD–ROM instead of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 1998 / Notices 38869

7This price would apply to all prior backlog

collections as well as the annual backlog collection

for 1997 and future annual backlog collections.

Telephone conversation with Ernesto A. Lanza,

Assistant General Counsel, Board, and Karl Varner,

Attorney, SEC, on July 2, 1998.

8Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28197 (July

12, 1990), 55 FR 29436 (July 19, 1990).

9 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(2)(C).

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

11 In reviewing this proposal, the Commission has

considered the proposed rule change’s impact on

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15

U.S.C. 78c(f). 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

magneto-optical disk or digital audio

tape (DAT). This change in media has

made the cost of selling annual backlog

collections more even. Thus, the Board

is establishing a price of $8,000 (plus

delivery or postage charges) for each

annual backlog collection.7

In its prior filings with the

Commission, the Board stated that it

intends to use its general revenues to

help fund collecting, indexing and

storing the OS/ARD subsystem’s

documents. However, the Board stated

its intention that the costs of producing

paper and electronic copies would be

completely covered by user fees.8 The

Board is changing the fees for the

annual backlog collectiuons to defray its

cost of disseminating the electronic

collections in a manner that reflects the

change in cost to the Board resulting

from the use of new media and in-house

imaging. This is consistent with the

Commission’s policy that self-regulatory

organizations’ fees be based on expenses

incurred in providing information to the

public. The Board believes that

employing cost-based prices is in the

public interest since it will ensure that

a complete collection of vital

information will be available, at fair and

responsible prices, for the life of the

municipal securities.

2. Statutory Basis

The Board believes the proposed rule

change is consistent with Section

15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,9 which requires,

in pertinent part, that the Board’s rules:

Be designed to prevent fraudulent and

manipulative acts and practices, to promote

just and equitable principles of trade, to

foster cooperation and coordination with

persons engaged in regulating, clearing,

settling, processing information with respect

to, and facilitating transactions in municipal

securities, to remove impediments to and

perfect the mechanism of free and open

market in municipal securities, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public

interest.

The MSIL system is designed to

increase the integrity and efficiency of

the municipal securities market by,

among other things, helping to ensure

that the price charged for an issue in the

secondary market reflects all available

official information about that issue.

The Board believes the new annual

backlog fee is fair and reasonable in

light of the costs associated with

disseminating the information and the

services provided by the MSIL system

are available on reasonable and

nondiscriminatory terms to any

interested person.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Board does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments were neither

solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The rule change became effective on

June 16, 1998, pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,10 because the

proposal establishes a fee. At any time

within sixty days of the filing of the

proposed rule change, the Commission

may summarily abrogate such rule

change if its appears to the Commission

that such action is necessary or

appropriate in the public interest, for

the protection of investors, or otherwise

in furtherance of the purposes of the

Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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.11

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 in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of the filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the Board’s principal offices. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–MSRB–98–7 and should be

submitted by August 10, 1998.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.12

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19181 Filed 7–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Public Meeting

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of a Public Meeting on

multi-Lender securitizations of the

unguaranteed portion of SBA loans

made under Section 7(a) of the Small

Business Act.

SUMMARY: SBA is modifying its Interim

Final Rule regarding financing and

securitizing the unguaranteed portions

of loans made under Section 7(a) of the

Small Business Act. In its proposed

rule, published May 18, 1998, SBA

specifically sought comments during the

60-day comment period to assist in

developing a proposal for multi-Lender

securitizations. (See 63 FR 27219)

Before developing such a proposal, SBA

will hold a public meeting to gather a

broad spectrum of ideas. Neither this

meeting nor any written suggestions

received after July 17, 1998, will be part

of the record for the proposed rule

published on May 18th.

DATES: July 30, 1998, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Eisenhower Conference

Room, U.S. Small Business

Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James W. Hammersley, Director,

Secondary Market Sales, (202) 205–

7505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA

posed several questions relating to

multi-Lender securitizations in its May

18th Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

(See 63 FR 27219) In addition to those

questions, SBA would like attendees to

consider the following issues:

(1) What are the possible ways for a

lender to retain an economic interest

when securitizing through a multiLender structure?

(2) How can SBA connect the

performance of securitizing lenders to

the required retained economic interest

in a multi-Lender structure?

(3) How should SBA manage the

participation in the Preferred Lender