[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12847-12851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6662]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-39730; File No. SR-BSE-97-09]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change by the Boston
Stock Exchange, Inc. Relating to its Specialist Performance Evaluation
Program
March 6, 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 December 17, 1997, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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 and to
grant accelerated approval to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange seeks to amend its specialist performance evaluation
program (``SPEP'') pilot with the addition of several objective
measures, the deletion of the floor broker questionnaire, a change from
using trade statistics to using share statistics for the price
improvement and depth measures, a readjusted point system, readjusted
threshold levels and/or weights for all of the measures, and a change
in the review period for the program from tri-annual to quarterly. The
proposed pilot program is intended to expire on December 31, 1998.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Commission initially approved the BSE's SPEP pilot
program in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 22993 (March 10,
1986), 51 FR 8298 (March 14, 1986) (File No. SR-BSE-84-04). The
Commission subsequently extended the pilot program in Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 26162 (October 6, 1988), 53 FR 40301
(October 14, 1988) (File No. SR-BSE-87-06); 27656 (January 30,
1990), 55 FR 4296 (February 7, 1990) (File No. SR-BSE-90-01); 28919
(February 26, 1991), 56 FR 9990 (March 8, 1991) (File No. SR-BSE-91-
01); and 30401 (February 24, 1992), 57 FR 7413 (March 2, 1992) (File
No. SR-BSE-92-01). The BSE was permitted to incorporate objective
measures of specialist performance into its pilot program in
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31890 (February 19, 1993), 58 FR
11647 (February 26, 1993) (File No. SR-BSE-92-04) (``February 1993
Approval Order''), at which point the initial pilot program ceased
to exist as a separate program. The current pilot program was
subsequently extended in Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 33341
(December 15, 1993), 58 FR 67875 (December 22, 1993) (``December
1993 Approval Order''); 35187 (December 30, 1994), 60 FR 2406
(January 9, 1995); 36668 (January 2, 1996), 61 FR 672 (January 9,
1996) (January 1996 Approval Order) (Pilot extended until December
31, 1996); and 38128 (January 17, 1997), FR (January, 1997) (Pilot
extended until December 31, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 III 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
Since the inception of the pilot program in February 1993, the
Exchange has continuously reviewed and fine-tuned the SPEP to ensure
that its specialists are providing competitive and quality executions.
In addition to looking for new objective measures of performance, the
Exchange has periodically changed the threshold levels and weights of
the existing measures. After an extensive review of overall Exchange
performance in the areas of price improvement and depth, areas which
the Exchange's Market Performance Committee and Board of Governors has
determined are critical to market quality, the Exchange is proposing to
measure price improvement in three categories covering all market
spreads (the current program focuses only on greater than eighth
spreads) and to heavily weight both the price improvement and depth
measures.
As occurs under the current program, only regular way,
unconditioned buy and sell market and marketable limit orders will
qualify for inclusion in the program, blocks of time will be excluded
from the program in the event of trading halts and system problems
which impact the validity of quotes; orders will be eligible for
measurement only if received after the primary market opens the stock;
stocks subject to competition will be included in the program; the same
staff and committee review time frames and available actions will
apply; and quarterly results will continue to be used in allocating
stocks.
The Exchange seeks to change the review periods from tri-annual to
quarterly, with each period beginning January, April, July, and
October. The Exchange believes that these shortened review periods will
permit a more frequent review process and a faster response to evident
performance, as well as enable specialists to address potential low
performance areas more efficiently.
Turnaround Time, which measures the average number of seconds from
the receipt of an order for 1299 shares or less in BEACON until it is
executed (in whole or in part), stopped or canceled, will remain
unchanged. Holding Orders Without Action, which measures the percentage
of orders (all order sizes included) which are neither executed (in
whole or in part), stopped nor canceled within twenty-five seconds,
[[Page 12848]]
will also remain unchanged. However, the point system and weights for
these two measures will be modified as described below.
The existing Trading Between the Quote measure is being replaced by
three separate price improvement measures. Each of these categories
will measure the percentage of shares \4\ executed at a price better
than the displayed national best bid or offer (``NBBO'') price at the
time the order is received. A separate category of orders will be
measures for less than one-eighth spreads, one-eighth spreads, and
greater than one-eighth spreads. Qualification in a category will be
based on the spread at the time the order is received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Commission notes that the current Trading Between the
Quote criterion measures a specialist's performance in terms of
trades, not shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existing Executions in Size Greater than the Best Bid and Offer
(``BBO'') is being renamed as ``Depth'' and modified to measure shares
rather than trades. This calculation will measure the percentage of
shares exceeding the displayed NBBO size which are executed at or
better than the displayed NBBO price.\5\ Only orders which at the time
of receipt exceed the displayed NBBO size will qualify for this
measure. An additional depth measure is being added to the program,
called ``Added Depth,'' which will measure the number of shares
executed by each specialist at the displayed NBBO price in excess of
the displayed NBBO size at the time the order is received, as a
percentage of the total number of shares executed by all specialists at
the displayed NBBO price in excess of the displayed NBBO price.\6\ This
measure will also include only those orders that exceed the displayed
NBBO at the time of receipt of the order, and will provide the raw
score percentage attributable to each specialist relative to all other
specialists being evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, assume the NBBO size is 500 shares displayed
and the BSE specialist receives an order for 1200 shares. Under the
current test, if the specialist executed 700 shares at the NBBO
price, he would effectively receive credit for executing the whole
order at the NBBO or better even though part of the order may have
been executed at a price inferior to the NBBO. (He would receive
credit for 1 trade out of 1 trade, or 100%). Under the proposed
revised test, measured in terms of shares versus trades, if the
specialist executed 600 shares at the NBBO price, the specialist
would receive credit for 600 shares out of 1200 shares, or 50%. If
the specialist executed 900 shares at the NBBO price, he would
receive credit for 900 out of 1200, or 75%.
\6\ For example assume the NBBO size is 500 shares displayed and
the BSE specialist receives an order for 1200 shares, and that the
specialist executes 600 shares at the displayed NBBO price.
Calculate how many shares over the NBBO size the specialist executed
by subtracting 500 from 600; the specialist has 100 shares of
``added depth.'' Then calculate the added depth for each qualifying
order for each specialist, add the added depth for each specialist
for each qualifying order, and total the added depth for all
specialists combined. Next, you compare each specialist's added
depth to the overall added depth for the floor to arrive at the
percentage for each specialist relative to the other specialists.
For example: 100 added depth for specialist A 10,000 added
depth for all specialists = 10% added depth for specialist A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Specialist Performance Evaluation Questionnaire (``SPEQ''),
which has been a part of the Exchange's performance evaluation program
since 1984, is being eliminated. For some time now, it has been the
Market Performance Committee's and BSE staff's view that the
Questionnaire is too subjective to have any meaningful value in the
overall performance of a specialist. Over time, its weight has been
significantly reduced in the overall evaluation program. The Committee
intends to redevelop the questionnaire and reintroduce it at some point
in the future, possibly as a tool to aid the Committee in effectively
assessing the performance of specialists required to appear as a result
of deficient performance in the objective measures and overall program.
The current ten point scale that is applied to the raw scores for
each measure is also being changed in an effort to better differentiate
among scores. Ranges of scores will be given points of either 0, 5, 10,
15 or 20 points, with 5 points being at the threshold level for each
measure. Specialists who fall below the threshold level will receive 0
points, whereas under the current scale can be given for unacceptable
performance. The Exchange believes that these changes will provide an
incentive to specialists to improve lower levels of performance and
will reward those specialists who are significantly outperforming their
peers.
The proposed range point scales for each of the measures is as
follows:
1. Turnaround Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time in seconds Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=21.0........................................................ 0
16.0-20.9..................................................... 5
11.0-15.9..................................................... 10
0-10.9........................................................ 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Holding Orders Without Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=21.0........................................................ 0
16.0-20.9..................................................... 5
11.0-15.9..................................................... 10
6.0-10.9...................................................... 15
0-5.9......................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Price Improvement (<\1/8\ Spreads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<2.0.......................................................... 0
2.0-3.9....................................................... 5
4.0-5.9....................................................... 10
6.0-9.9....................................................... 15
>=10.0........................................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Price Improvement (\1/8\ Spreads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<15.0......................................................... 0
15.0-19.9..................................................... 5
20.0-24.9..................................................... 10
25.0-29.9..................................................... 15
>=30.0........................................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Price Improvement (>\1/8\ Spreads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<25.0......................................................... 0
25.0-34.9..................................................... 5
35.0-39.9..................................................... 10
40.0-44.9..................................................... 15
>=45.0........................................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Depth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<75.0......................................................... 0
75.0-79.9..................................................... 5
80.0-84.9..................................................... 10
85.0-89.9..................................................... 15
>=90.0........................................................ 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Added Depth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of orders Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1.0.......................................................... 0
1.0-1.9....................................................... 5
2.0-3.9....................................................... 10
4.0-5.9....................................................... 15
>=6.0......................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following minimum threshold levels have been set, at which a
Specialist will be deemed to have adequately performed:
Overall Program--at or above weighted score of 5.00
Turnaround Time--below 21.0 seconds (5 points)
Holding Orders Without Action--below 21.0% (5 points)
[[Page 12849]]
Price Improvement (<\1/8\--at or above 2.0% (5 points)
Price Improvement (\1/8\)--at or above 15.0% (5 points)
Price Improvement (>\1/8\--at or above 25.0% (5 points)
Depth--at or above 75.0% (5 points)
Added Depth--at or above 1.0% (5 points)
Assuming that a specialist performed at the above minimum threshold
levels for each measure, the breakdown of weighted points would be as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Weighted
Measure (percent) Points points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnaround Time........................ 5 5 0.25
Holding Orders Without Action.......... 5 5 0.25
Price Improvement (<\1/8\)............. 20 5 1.00
Price Improvement (\1/8\).............. 15 5 0.75
Price Improvement (>\1/8\)............. 15 5 0.75
Depth.................................. 20 5 1.00
Added Depth............................ 20 5 1.00
----------
Overall Weighted Score........... ......... ......... 5.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange is requesting accelerated approval of the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. The Exchange
believes that such action is appropriate in that the existing
Specialist Performance Evaluation Program's heavily weighted objective
measure regarding price improvement in greater than one-eighth markets
has become obsolete as the sole determinant of price improvement
statistics. That category alone accounts for only ten percent of the
Exchange's overall trade volume. The Exchange also believes that the
current program's use of trade data is less effective than using share
data will be because share data will present a better overall picture
of execution quality. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed changes will create a more meaningful and effective overall
program for evaluating its specialists, with the heavily weighted
market quality measures for price improvement and depth. Finally, the
Exchange seeks to implement this amended program as soon as possible
and has informed its specialists that such changes have been proposed
to the Commission for approval on an accelerated basis, and has begun
making the system programming changes necessary to accumulate,
calculate and store statistics for the program.
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes that the statutory basis for the proposed
rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in that it is designed 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 securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 USC. 78f(b)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any 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. 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. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 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 Room. Copies of such filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-97-09 and
should be submitted by April 6, 1998.
IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the
BSE's proposal to extend the revised SPEP pilot program until December
31, 1998 is consistent with the requirements of Sections 6 and 11 of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange. Specifically, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\
requirement that the rules of the Exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 11(b) of the Act \9\ and Rule 11b-1 thereunder \10\ which allow
securities exchanges to promulgate rules relating to specialists in
order to maintain fair and orderly markets and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(b).
\10\ 17 CFR 240.11b-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that specialists play a crucial role in
providing stability, liquidity, and continuity to the trading of
stocks. Among the obligations imposed upon specialists by the Exchange,
and by the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, is the maintenance
of fair and orderly markets in their designated securities.\11\ To
ensure that specialists fulfill these obligations, it is important that
the Exchange conduct effective
[[Page 12850]]
oversight of their performance. The BSE's SPEP is critical to this
oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Rule 11b-1, 17 CFR 240.11b-1; BSE Rules Ch. XV, para.
2155.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the Exchange's development of two new
objective criteria, Price Improvement and Added Depth, is a positive
step forward in establishing meaningful objective specialist
performance criteria. These new objective measures are designed to
measure market quality in two important areas of specialist
performance, price improvement and depth. By replacing Trading Between
the Quote with Price Improvement, the amount of time the specialist
executes orders at a price better than the NBBO \12\ will be measured
in three categories covering all market spreads, rather than just in
greater than \1/8\th markets. The Added Depth measure will allow BSE to
measure in percentage terms, how often a specialist executes an order
at a size greater than the NBBO size, at the NBBO price, relative to
all the other specialists. In addition, the Commission believes it is
reasonable to measure Price Improvement and Depth and Added Depth in
terms of shares executed, rather than trades, because it should give a
better picture of a specialist's execution quality by giving
specialists credit for the number of shares in a trade actually
executed above the NBBO size at the NBBO price, rather than for an
entire trade where the specialist may have only executed part of the
trade at or better than the NBBO price.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In Trading Between the Quote, the performance was measured
against BSE's BBO rather than the NBBO.
\13\ See supra example note 5. In that example, under the
current regime, a specialist who executed 600 out of the 1200 shares
would receive the same credit as one who executes 800 out of 1200.
However, under the proposed rule change, the specialist who executed
800 shares would receive a higher score than the one who executes
600 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes it is reasonable under the Act to amend the
point system for all of the objective measures of specialist
performance. The Commission believes that the revised test, where
specialists who fall below the adequate threshold levels will not
receive any points, as compared to the current scale where points are
still awarded for performance below the adequate threshold level,
should provide an added incentive to specialists to receive partial
credit for unacceptable performance. Regarding BSE's proposed reliance
on share statistics (versus trade statistics), the Commission believes
that the threshold levels set for each objective measure are
reasonable. The Commission nevertheless reiterates its previous request
that BSE continually monitor the adequate threshold levels and propose
adjustments as necessary. The Commission also believes that the change
in the weighting of each objective measure is reasonable, in that the
Price Improvement and depth measures, which measure market quality and
liquidity, are more highly weighted than Turnaround Time and Holding
Orders Without Action, which have been reduced to 10% combined weight.
The Commission believes it is reasonable for BSE to eliminate the
current SPEQ, a subjective measure of specialist performance,
particularly given the breadth of the proposed performance measures,
which rely on objective criteria. The Commission also believes it is
consistent with the Act to allow the Exchange to review the specialist
performance quarterly, rather than tri-annually. By allowing for more
frequent review of specialist performance, BSE should be able to
respond more rapidly and efficiently in order to identify deficient
performance by specialists.
Extending the pilot program until December 31, 1998 will allow the
Exchange to gain experience in administering the new specialist
performance program and provide sufficient time for BSE to respond to
the Commission's continuing concerns about the SPEP. In particular, the
Commission expects the BSE to incorporate additional objective criteria
into the SPEP, most importantly, a measure of quote performance \14\
The Commission recently observed, in its study on the practice of
preferencing, that BSE specialists' quotes are only equal to the NBBO a
very low percentage of the time.\15\ In response to a request from the
Division of Market Regulation to address the issue of measuring
specialist quote performance, BSE has stated that it is currently
developing the technological means to evaluate quote performance and
will submit a rule amendment in September 1998 modifying its SPEP to
include an objective measure of quote performance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, the BSE could develop additional measures of
market depth, such as how often the specialist's quote exceeds 500
shares or how often the BSE quote, in size, is larger than the NBBO
(excluding quotes for 100 shares). Another possible objective
criteria could measure quote performance; how often the BSE
specialist's quote, in price, is alone at or the same as the NBBO.
See January 1996 Approval Order.
\15\ See Report on the Practice of Preferencing Pursuant to
Section 510(c) of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of
1996, Commission, April 11, 1997 at Table V-5 (BSE specialists'
quotes are equal to the NBBO approximately only 5% of the time).
\16\ See letter from Karen A. Aluise, Vice President, BSE, to
Howard Kramer, Associate Director, Market Regulation, Commission,
dated February 13, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the next year of the pilot's operation, BSE should continue
to assess whether each SPEP measure is assigned an appropriate
weight.\17\ In addition, the Commission expects the Exchange to
continue to conduct an on-going examination of its minimum adequate
performance thresholds, in order to ensure that they continue to be set
at appropriate levels.\18\ The Commission notes its continued belief
that relative performance rankings that subject the bottom 10% of all
specialist units to review by an Exchange committee are important part
of an effective evaluation program. The BSE should continue to closely
monitor the conditions for review and should take steps to ensure that
all specialists whose performance is deficient and/or diverges widely
from the best units will be subject to meaningful review. In the
Commission's opinion, a meaningful review process would ensure that
adequate corrective actions are taken with respect to each deficient
specialist.\19\ The Commission would have difficulty granting permanent
approval to a SPEP that did not include a satisfactory response to the
concerns described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Commission had recommended in its January 1996 Approval
Order that the BSE consider either having only one measure out of
the Turnaround Time and Holding Orders Without Action categories or
reducing the weights of these existing measures, which together
accounted for 30% of the current SPEP, given the substantial overlap
between those two measures. In response to this recommendation, the
BSE first reduced the weights of two measures to 25% of the overall
program, and decreased the weight of the SPEQ to 5% and increasing
the weight of each of the other objective criteria from 25% to 35%.
See August 1996 Release. In addition, the current proposed rule
change further reduces the weights of the two measures to 5% each.
\18\ In August 1996, in response to this same recommendation the
BSE some of the minimum adequate performance levels to provide a
higher benchmark for acceptable specialist performance on the
Exchange. See August 1996 Release.
In the current proposed rule change, BSE has further amended the
performance level of price improvement (which replaces Trading
Between the Quote) and the two depth measures by slightly lowering
them, to reflect the change from measuring performance in terms of
trades to shares.
\19\ In response to these comments, the BSE previously revised
its review process by tightening the standards for committee review
for substandard specialist performance both in the overall program
and in individual measures. The criteria for PIAC review for
substandard performance in any one objective measure was reduced
from two out of three consecutive review periods to any one review
period. The crieteria for MPC review of substandard performance in
any one objective measure was reduced from three out of four
consecutive review periods to two out of three consecutive review
periods, while MPC review for substandard overall performance was
reduced from two out of three consecutive review periods to any one
review period. See August 1996 Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission therefore requests that the BSE submit a report to
the
[[Page 12851]]
Commission, by September 17, 1998, describing its experience with the
pilot. At a minimum, this report should contain data, for the last
review period of 1997 and the first two review periods of 1998, on (1)
the number of specialists who fell below acceptable levels of
performances for each objective measure, \20\ the questionnaire (for
the last review period of 1997) and the overall program, and the
specific measures in which each such specialist was deficient; (2) the
number of specialists who, as a result of the objective measures,
appeared before the PIAC for informal counseling; (3) the number of
such specialists then referred to the MPC and the type of action taken;
(4) the number of specialists who, as a result of the overall program,
appeared before the MPC and the type of action taken; (5) the number of
specialists who, as a result of the questionnaire (for the last review
period of 1997) or falling in the bottom 10% were referred by the
Exchange staff to the PIAC and the type of action taken (this should
include the number of specialists then referred to the MPC and the type
of action taken by that Committee); and (6) a list of stocks
reallocated due to substandard performance and the particular unit
involved. The report also should discuss the specific action taken by
the BSE to develop additional objective measures and address the other
concerns noted above. Any requests to modify this pilot, to extend its
effectiveness or to seek permanent approval for the SPEP should be
submitted to the Commission by September 17, 1998, as a proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For objective measure, the Commission also requests that
the BSE provide the mean and median scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice thereof in the Federal Register. This will permit the pilot
program to continue and allow the BSE time to consider improvements to
its program. In addition, the rule change that implemented the pilot
program was published in the Federal Register for the full comment
period, and no comments were received.\21\ Accordingly, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the Act to accelerate approval of
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See February 1993 Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \22\ that the
proposed rule change is hereby approved on an accelerated basis,
through December 31, 1998.
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-6662 Filed 3-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M