[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47579-47583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18252]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-46196; File No. SR-AMEX-2002-19]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule 
Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto by the American Stock 
Exchange LLC Relating to Performance Evaluation Procedures for 
Specialists Trading Securities Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

July 12, 2002.
    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 March 14, 2002, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' 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 Exchange. The 
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposal on May 6, 2002\3\ and 
Amendment No. 2 to its proposal on May 28, 2002.\4\ The Commission is 
publishing this notice to solicit

[[Page 47580]]

comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested 
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See letter from Geraldine Brindisi, Vice President and 
Corporate Secretary, Amex, to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant Director, 
Division of Market Regulation (``Division''), Commission, dated May 
3, 2002 (``Amendment No. 1'').
    \4\ See letter from Geraldine Brindisi, Vice President and 
Corporate Secretary, Amex, to Nancy J. Sanow, Assistant Director, 
Division, Commission, dated May 24, 2002 (``Amendment No. 2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of 
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Amex proposes to adopt Amex Rule 29, Market Quality Committee, 
to codify the Exchanges's performance evaluation procedures for 
securities admitted to dealings on an unlisted trading privileges 
(``UTP'') basis. The text of the proposed rule change is below. 
Proposed new language is in italics.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange requested that the Commission correct a 
typographical error in Commentary .04 of the proposed rule language. 
Telephone discussion between Bill Floyd-Jones, Assistant General 
Counsel, Amex, and Marc F. McKayle, Special Counsel, and Christopher 
B. Stone, Attorney Advisor, Division, Commission (June 14, 
2002)(``Telephone Conference''). The Exchange also requested that 
the Commission correct an errant reference to ``Market Performance 
Committee'' in paragraph (c) of the proposed rule language below. 
Telephone discussion between Bill Floyd-Jones, Assistant General 
Counsel, Amex, and Christopher B. Stone, Attorney Advisor, Division, 
Commission (June 19, 2002). The Exchange has committed to submitting 
a conforming amendment reflecting these changes during the comment 
period for the rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Market Quality Committee

    Rule 29. (a) The Market Quality Committee shall consist of seven 
persons comprised as follows: the Chief Executive Officer of the 
Exchange (or his or her designee), three members of the Exchange's 
senior management selected by the Chief Executive Officer, one 
representative of upstairs member firms, one representative of 
institutional investors, and one member who spends a substantial 
portion of his or her time on the Trading Floor. The minimum quorum for 
the transaction of business by the Market Quality Committee shall be 
four persons. The Chief Executive Officer shall chair meetings of the 
Market Quality Committee. The Chief Executive Officer may designate a 
member of the Market Quality Committee to chair meetings in the Chief 
Executive Officer's absence. The chairman of the Market Quality 
Committee shall not vote except to make or break a tie. Persons on the 
Market Quality Committee may attend meetings by telephone.
    (b) The Market Quality Committee shall evaluate the performance of 
specialists registered in securities admitted to dealings on an 
unlisted basis (``UTP Specialists'') with respect to, among other 
things: (1) quality of markets, (2) competition with other market 
centers, (3) administrative matters, and (4) willingness to promote the 
Exchange as a marketplace. The Market Quality Committee may consider 
any relevant information, including but not limited to trading data, 
order flow statistics, market quality statistics, and such other 
factors and data pertaining to both the Amex and other market centers 
as may be relevant in the circumstances. The Market Quality Committee 
may take one or more of the following actions if it finds that the 
performance of the UTP Specialist is inadequate relative to one or more 
of the above factors: (1) send advisory letters, (2) counsel UTP 
Specialists on how to improve their market quality, (3) require UTP 
Specialists to adopt a performance improvement plan, (4) require the 
reallocation of securities, (5) suspend a UTP Specialist's registration 
as a specialist for a specific period of time, or (6) prohibit a UTP 
Specialist from receiving allocations in a particular situation or for 
a specified period of time.
    (c) The Market Quality Committee shall review, and approve, 
disapprove or conditionally approve, mergers and acquisitions of UTP 
Specialists, transfers of one or more UTP Specialist registrations, UTP 
Specialist joint accounts, and changes in control or composition of UTP 
Specialist firms. The Market Quality Committee shall approve a proposed 
transaction involving a UTP Specialist unless it determines that a 
countervailing institutional interest indicates that the transaction 
should be disapproved or conditionally approved. In determining whether 
there is a countervailing institutional interest, the Market Quality 
Committee shall consider the maintenance or enhancement of the quality 
of the Exchange's market, taking into account the criteria that the UTP 
Allocations Committee may consider in making an initial allocation 
determination and other considerations as may be relevant in the 
particular circumstances.
    (d) The Market Quality Committee may meet with a UTP Specialist 
that may have failed to meet minimum performance standards with respect 
to UTP Securities. In such an event, the UTP Specialist shall be 
notified in writing of the grounds to be considered by the Market 
Quality Committee and afforded an opportunity to make a presentation of 
relevant information. Such UTP Specialist shall be given access to all 
written material to be reviewed by the Market Quality Committee, and 
all persons appearing before the Market Quality Committee may be 
represented by counsel. However, formal rules of evidence shall not 
apply in meetings of the Market Quality Committee. A failure to meet 
minimum standards relating to: (1) quality of markets, (2) competition 
with other market centers, (3) administrative matters, or (4) 
willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace may form the basis 
for remedial action by the Market Quality Committee against a UTP 
Specialist. Any UTP Specialist affected by a decision of the Market 
Quality Committee shall be informed in writing of the decision, which 
decision shall include the findings, conclusions, and any remedial 
action to be taken (hereinafter ``written notification'').
    (e) If, after receiving the notice of a meeting, a UTP Specialist 
refuses or otherwise fails without reasonable justification or excuse 
to meet with the Market Quality Committee, the Market Quality Committee 
may take such action as it believes appropriate.
    (f) A UTP Specialist aggrieved by a decision of the Market Quality 
Committee may appeal such decision to the Amex Adjudicatory Council. An 
application for review must be submitted to the Secretary of the 
Exchange within five business days of receipt of the written 
notification. The decision of the Market Quality Committee is stayed 
upon the filing of a timely application for review. Any written 
statement and documents in support of an appeal to the Adjudicatory 
Council must be submitted to the Secretary of the Exchange within 25 
calendar days of receipt of the written notification. The Market 
Quality Committee shall have 20 calendar days from receipt by the 
Secretary of the Exchange of the statement in support of the appeal to 
submit a rebuttal statement together with supporting documents. The 
Adjudicatory Council may (1) limit its review of the appeal to the 
record created by the Market Quality Committee together with the 
written statements and supporting documents submitted by the appellant 
and Committee in connection with the appeal, (2) consider additional 
information that was not included in the record, or (3) hear the matter 
``de novo,'' as the Council determines is appropriate to render a fair 
decision on the appeal. A verbatim record of the Adjudicatory Council 
proceeding shall be kept and a written decision of the Amex 
Adjudicatory Council shall be rendered as soon as reasonably possible 
after the hearing. The decision of the Amex Adjudicatory Council shall 
constitute final action by the Exchange.
    * * ;* Commentary
    .01  Willingness to Promote the Exchange as a Market Place. 
Willingness to promote the Exchange as a market place includes 
providing financial and

[[Page 47581]]

other support for the Exchange's program to trade securities on an 
unlisted basis, contributing to the Exchange's marketing effort, 
consistently applying for allocations, assisting in meeting and 
educating market participants (and taking time for travel related 
thereto), maintaining communications with member firms in order to be 
responsive to suggestions and complaints, responding to competition by 
offering competitive markets and competitively priced services, and 
other like activities.
    .02  Performance Improvement Plans. The Market Quality Committee 
may require a UTP Specialist to develop a performance improvement plan 
when it determines that the UTP Specialist has fallen below acceptable 
measures of performance for UTP Securities relative to its peers or 
other market centers with respect to (1) quality of markets, (2) 
competition with other market centers, (3) administrative matters, or 
(4) willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace. If the Market 
Quality Committee determines that a performance improvement plan should 
be developed, it shall advise the UTP Specialist in writing of its 
findings, the specific areas where the Market Quality Committee 
believes that improvement is required, and measurable goals that the 
Market Quality Committee believes the UTP Specialist should achieve. 
The UTP Specialist will prepare within the time required by the Market 
Quality Committee a written performance improvement plan detailing the 
specific, tangible steps that it will take to improve its performance 
and meet any goals established by the Market Quality Committee and the 
time for the completion of the plan. The Market Quality Committee may 
accept the plan as submitted or may make such modifications as it deems 
appropriate which modifications shall be binding upon the UTP 
Specialist. The Market Quality Committee, or persons appointed by it 
for the purpose, shall monitor the implementation of the performance 
improvement plan by the UTP Specialist. If the UTP Specialist has not 
achieved the goals set by the Market Quality Committee within the 
required time, the Market Quality Committee may grant for good cause 
shown one extension not to exceed 90 days to achieve the goals. The 
Market Quality Committee may not grant more than one extension. The 
Market Quality Committee shall take stronger remedial action against 
the UTP Specialist if, at the end of the time of the performance 
improvement plan or any extension, the UTP Specialist has not achieved 
the specified goals.
    .03  Performance Ratings for UTP Specialists. As soon as possible 
following the completion of a calendar quarter, the Exchange shall rate 
each UTP Specialist from ``1'' through ``5'' (with ``1'' representing 
the best possible rating) based upon their market quality relative to 
criteria such as the following:
     Net price improvement
     Effective spread
     Quote size
     Execution speed
     Percentage of marketable customer orders sent away to 
another market for execution
     Floor Broker Questionnaire rankings
    The Exchange will allocate weightings to these criteria and will 
notify UTP Specialists of these relative weightings prior to their 
implementation. The Exchange may change the criteria used to evaluate 
UTP Specialists and the weighting assigned to each criterion from time 
to time as warranted by market conditions in order to enhance the 
Exchange's competitiveness relative to other markets and/or to improve 
market quality. The Exchange will notify UTP Specialists of any change 
in the criteria or weightings of criteria in advance of the calendar 
quarter in which the change will be implemented. The Exchange also will 
notify UTP Specialists of their ratings.
    A UTP Specialist unit that receives a ``5'' rating in any two of 
four consecutive quarters shall be referred to the Market Quality 
Committee for consideration of possible reallocation of one or more 
securities admitted to dealings on an unlisted basis or other 
appropriate remedial action. A UTP Specialist that receives ratings of 
``4'' or ``5'' in any three of six consecutive quarters shall be 
referred to the Market Quality Committee for consideration of possible 
reallocation of one or more securities admitted to dealings on an 
unlisted basis or other appropriate remedial action. The Market Quality 
Committee is not precluded from reallocating one or more securities or 
taking other remedial action based on a single instance of deficient 
performance or a single quarter of poor ratings. Conversely, the Market 
Quality Committee is not required to take such actions. The nature of 
the appropriate remedial actions is necessarily subject to professional 
judgment, dependent on such matters as the security being traded, 
competition on other markets centers, personnel and systems changes, 
and other factors. Accordingly, such determinations are left to the 
expertise, discretion and judgment of the Market Quality Committee.
    The Market Quality Committee shall consider UTP Specialist 
performance ratings in determining whether to approve, disapprove or 
conditionally approve, mergers and acquisitions of UTP Specialists, 
transfers of one or more UTP Specialist registrations, UTP Specialist 
joint accounts, and changes in control or composition of UTP Specialist 
firms.
    .04  Market Share Evaluation for UTP Specialists. The Exchange 
shall regularly evaluate the market share of UTP Specialists with 
respect to share volume and shall inform UTP specialists of their 
market share. The Exchange shall establish minimum market share 
criteria from time to time based upon market conditions, and may 
establish different criteria for securities with different trading 
characteristics (e.g., average daily volumes, number of competing 
market makers). The Exchange shall notify UTP specialists of any change 
in minimum market share criteria in advance of the period in which the 
change will be implemented. UTP Specialists that fall below the minimum 
market share criteria established by the Exchange in one or more UTP 
securities shall be referred to the Market Quality Committee for 
consideration of reallocation or other appropriate remedial action.
    The Market Quality Committee is not precluded from reallocating one 
or more securities or taking other remedial action based on a single 
instance of deficient performance or a single quarter of poor ratings. 
Conversely, the Market Quality Committee is not required to take such 
actions. The nature of the appropriate remedial actions is necessarily 
a matter of professional judgment, dependent on such matters as the 
security being traded, competition on other markets centers, personnel 
and systems changes, and other factors. Accordingly, such 
determinations are left to the expertise, discretion and judgment of 
the Market Quality Committee.
    The Market Quality Committee shall consider UTP Specialist market 
share performance in determining whether to approve, disapprove or 
conditionally approve, mergers and acquisitions of UTP Specialists, 
transfers of one or more UTP Specialist registrations, UTP Specialist 
joint accounts, and changes in control or composition of UTP Specialist 
firms.
* * * * *

[[Page 47582]]

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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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
    The Exchange anticipates that Amex UTP Specialists will operate in 
an extraordinarily competitive environment. The Exchange, accordingly, 
has developed a new program to evaluate and remediate UTP Specialist 
performance. The ultimate goal of the performance evaluation process 
would be to ensure that the Exchange is as successful as possible in 
garnering market share in UTP securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ According to Amex, the Commission, in its decision In the 
Matter of the Application of Pacific Stock Exchange's Options Floor 
Post X-17, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-7285, Exchange Act 
Release No. 31666 (December 29, 1992), determined that performance 
evaluation processes fulfill a combination of business and 
regulatory interests at exchanges. The Commission stated in the Post 
X-17 case: We believe that [a self-regulatory organization's 
(``SRO's'')] need to evaluate market maker and specialist 
performance arises from both business and regulatory interests in 
ensuring adequate market making performance by its market makers and 
specialists that are distinct from the SRO's enforcement interests 
in disciplining members who violate SRO or Commission Rules. An 
exchange has an obligation to ensure that its market makers or 
specialists are contributing to the maintenance of fair and orderly 
markets in its securities. In addition, an exchange has an interest 
in ensuring that the services provided by its members attract buyers 
and sellers to the exchange. To effectuate both purposes, an SRO 
needs to be able to evaluate the performance of its market makers or 
specialists and transfer securities from poor performing units to 
the better performing units. This type of action is very different 
from a disciplinary proceeding where a sanction is meted out to 
remedy a specific rule violation. (Footnotes omitted.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, a new committee, the Market Quality Committee, 
would administer the Exchange's program to evaluate and enhance UTP 
Specialist performance. The Committee is proposed to consist of seven 
persons: the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange, three members of 
the Exchange's senior management selected by the Chief Executive 
Officer, one representative of upstairs member firms, one 
representative of institutional investors, and one member who spends a 
substantial portion of his or her time on the Trading Floor. The 
Committee would regularly evaluate UTP Specialists to determine whether 
they have fulfilled standards relating to: (1) Quality of markets, (2) 
competition with other market centers, (3) administrative matters, and 
(4) willingness to promote the Exchange as a marketplace. The Committee 
also would review transfers of specialist registrations in UTP 
securities to ensure that the Exchange's institutional interests are 
protected.
    As proposed, the Market Quality Committee could take one or more of 
the following actions if it finds that a UTP Specialist has not met 
relevant standards: (1) Send an advisory letter, (2) counsel UTP 
Specialists on how to improve their performance, (3) require UTP 
Specialists to adopt performance improvement plans, (4) require the 
reallocation of securities, (5) suspend a specialist's registration as 
a UTP Specialist for a specific period of time, or (6) prohibit a UTP 
Specialist from receiving allocations in a particular situation or for 
a specified period of time. In the event that a UTP Specialist refuses 
or otherwise fails without reasonable justification or excuse to meet 
with the Market Quality Committee, the Market Quality Committee could 
take such action as it believes appropriate based on the information 
available to it without waiting for an appearance by the UTP 
Specialist.\7\ Persons that are aggrieved by decisions of the Market 
Quality Committee may appeal them to the Amex Adjudicatory Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange clarified that the reference to ``such action 
as the Market Quality Committee believes appropriate'' and 
corresponding language in the proposed rule text (Rule 29(e)) is not 
meant to expand the remedial power of the Market Quality Committee 
otherwise provided for in the proposed Amex Rule 29(b). Telephone 
Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Committee could take remedial action with 
respect to UTP Specialists as a result of one or more transactions that 
involve poor performance that are identified through Amex surveillance 
or complaints. The Exchange also proposes to evaluate routinely UTP 
Specialist performance relative to both market quality and market share 
criteria.
    Each quarter, the Exchange proposes to rate all UTP Specialists 
from ``1'' to ``5'' on a curve based upon their scores with respect to 
the market quality criteria.\8\ A rating of ``1'' would represent the 
best possible score. A UTP Specialist unit that receives a ``5'' rating 
in any two of four consecutive quarters, or ratings of ``4'' or ``5'' 
in any three of six consecutive quarters, would be referred to the 
Market Quality Committee for consideration of reallocation or other 
appropriate remedial action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange explained that UTP specialists would be rated 
on a curve and, thus, such ratings would reflect the performance of 
specialists relative to one another rather than theoretical 
performance levels. Telephone Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to change the market quality criteria used to 
evaluate specialists and the weightings of these criteria from time to 
time as warranted by market conditions. The Exchange proposes to notify 
UTP Specialists of any changes to the criteria and weightings prior to 
implementation.\9\ The Exchange proposes the following market quality 
criteria at the outset of the program to evaluate UTP Specialist 
performance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange represented to the Commission that notification 
of any criteria or weighting changes generally will take place 
within a month before the implementation of such changes. Moreover, 
criteria and weightings changes would only be implemented at the 
beginning of a rating quarter. Telephone Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Net price improvement
     Effective spread
     Quote size
     Execution speed
     Percentage of marketable customer orders sent away to 
another market for execution
     Floor Broker Questionnaire rankings
    With respect to market share reviews, the Exchange proposes to 
establish minimum market share criteria for UTP securities based upon 
market conditions, and may establish different criteria for securities 
with different trading characteristics (e.g., average daily volumes or 
numbers of competing market makers). Specialists that fall below the 
minimum market share criteria established by the Exchange in one or 
more UTP securities would be referred to the Market Quality Committee 
for consideration of reallocation or other appropriate remedial action.
    The Exchange proposes to change the minimum market share criteria 
used to evaluate UTP Specialists from time to time as warranted by 
market conditions. The Exchange would notify UTP Specialists of any 
changes to the market share criteria prior to implementation. The 
Exchange also would notify UTP Specialists of their market share.
    As proposed, the market share evaluation program would be separate 
from the performance ratings system described above. Thus, for example, 
a

[[Page 47583]]

UTP Specialist with performance ratings that would not trigger remedial 
action could be referred to the Market Quality Committee for 
consideration of reallocation or other action based upon sub-standard 
market share in one or more UTP securities.
    As noted above, under the UTP Specialist evaluation procedures, 
performance reviews can result from: (1) Complaints or surveillance 
reviews, (2) low scores under the UTP Specialist market quality ratings 
systems, or (3) low market share in one or more UTP securities. As 
proposed, a performance review could result in a variety of possible 
actions, ranging from recommendations for performance improvement, a 
determination not to permit a firm to seek new allocations, to a 
reallocation of one or more UTP securities from a UTP Specialist. The 
Committee would not be precluded from reallocating UTP securities based 
on a single instance of deficient performance or a single quarter of 
poor ratings or low market share. Conversely, the Committee would not 
be required to take such actions. Rather, the purpose of the rules and 
processes is to identify circumstances that warrant review by the 
Market Quality Committee. The nature of the appropriate remedial 
actions is necessarily subject to professional judgment, dependent on 
such matters as the UTP securities being traded, competition on other 
market centers, personnel, and systems changes, and other factors.\10\ 
Accordingly, such determinations are left to the expertise, discretion, 
and judgment of the Market Quality Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The phrase ``necessarily a subjective matter'' has been 
replaced with ``necessarily subject to professional judgment'' in 
both the purpose section and the proposed rule text in Commentary 
.03. As noted above, the Exchange has committed to submitting a 
conforming amendment during the comment period of the rule filing. 
Telephone Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and 
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, which requires, among 
other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just 
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect 
investors and the public interest by encouraging good performance and 
competition among markets and specialists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no 
burden on competition; rather, it believes that the proposed rule will 
enhance and encourage competition both within the Exchange, and, more 
significantly, between and among the Exchange and other markets by 
establishing incentives for superior performance and thereby ensuring 
the maintenance of quality markets at the Exchange. In this respect, 
the Exchange believes that it is critical to recognize that the most 
important level of competition occurs not among specialists of the same 
exchange to obtain a particular listing (although this, too, is 
important), but rather among specialists of different exchanges trading 
in the same security and actively competing for the business of the 
investing public. The Exchange believes that the procedures as set 
forth in the proposed rule change for reviewing the performance of 
specialists and taking remedial action, are necessary to ensure quality 
markets and thereby attract buyers and sellers to the Exchange.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on 
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing 
for Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of 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 Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such 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, 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 20549-0609. 
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 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-AMEX-2002-19 and 
should be submitted by August 9, 2002.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-18252 Filed 7-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P