Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating to DPM Obligations for Maintaining Backup Autoquote Systems, 51101-51102 [E5-4712]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filing and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549
Extension: Rule 30b1–5; SEC File No. 270–
520; OMB Control No. 3235–0577.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting
comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the
Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) for extension and approval.
The title for the collection of
information is ‘‘Rule 30b1–5 under the
Investment Company Act of 1940,
Quarterly Filing of Schedule of Portfolio
Holdings of Registered Management
Investment Companies.’’
Rule 30b1–5 under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 requires
registered management investment
companies, other than small business
investment companies registered on
Form N–5, to file a quarterly report via
the Commission’s EDGAR system on
Form N–Q, not more than sixty calendar
days after the close of each first and
third fiscal quarter, containing their
complete portfolio holdings.
The Commission estimates that there
are 9,850 management investment
companies and series that are governed
by the rule. The Commission estimates
that the annual burden associated with
the rule is 1 hour per affected
investment company or series. The total
burden hours for rule 30b1–5 is 9,850
per year in the aggregate (9,850
responses × 1 hour per response).
Estimates of average burden hours are
made solely for the purposes of the Act,
and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative
survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
The collection of information under
rule 30b1–5 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 30b1–
5 is not kept confidential. The
Commission may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:17 Aug 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given
to comments and suggestions submitted
in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Please direct your written comments
to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Office of
Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549.
Dated: August 22, 2005.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary,
[FR Doc. E5–4713 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am]
51101
Institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature; and an
Adjudicatory matter.
At times, changes in Commission
priorities require alterations in the
scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been
added, deleted or postponed, please
contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202)
551–5400.
Dated: August 23, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–17165 Filed 8–24–05; 4:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–52319; File No. SR–CBOE–
2005–28]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval
to Proposed Rule Change Relating to
DPM Obligations for Maintaining
Backup Autoquote Systems
Sunshine Act Meeting
August 23, 2005.
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that
the Securities and Exchange
Commission will hold the following
meeting during the week of August 29,
2005:
A Closed Meeting will be held on
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the
Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries
will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain
staff members who have an interest in
the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the
Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or
more of the exemptions set forth in 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and
(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7),
9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the Closed
Meeting.
Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer,
voted to consider the items listed for the
closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the Closed
Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August
30, 2005, will be:
Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of
injunctive actions; and
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On April 1, 2005, the Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated
(‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
amend Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and (xii) to
remove the requirement that Designated
Primary Market-Makers (‘‘DPMs’’)
maintain a back-up quoting system for
Hybrid and non-Hybrid option classes.
The Exchange proposes a corresponding
amendment to its Minor Rule Plan to
remove references to Rules 8.85(a)(xi)
and 8.85(a)(xii). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on July 22, 2005.3
The Commission received no comments
on the proposal. This order approves the
proposed rule change.
The Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act,4 applicable to a national securities
exchange.5 In particular, the
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52044
(July 15, 2005), 70 FR 42397 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 See 15 U.S.C. 78f.
5 In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered its impact on
2 17
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
Continued
29AUN1
51102
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices
Commission believes that the proposal
is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and
6(b)(7) of the Act,6 which require,
among other things, that an exchange
have rules designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, protect
investors and the public interest, and
enhance the effectiveness and fairness
of the Exchange’s disciplinary
procedures. The Commission believes
that CBOE’s proposed rule changes
should help to improve the efficiency of
CBOE’s market by eliminating
unnecessary costs now borne by the
Exchange’s DPMs relating to the
maintenance of back-up quotation
systems.
As set forth in the Notice, CBOE Rules
8.85(a)(xi) and (xii) both impose an
obligation on DPMs to maintain
independent backup autoquote systems
that can be employed in the event that
a DPM’s proprietary autoquote system
should fail or be otherwise unavailable.
Rule 8.85(a)(xi) governs non-CBOE
Hybrid System (‘‘non-Hybrid’’) classes,
while Rule 8.85(a)(xii) governs CBOE
Hybrid System (‘‘Hybrid’’) classes.
With regard to CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(xi),
the Commission notes that the Exchange
has converted all of its DPM option
classes to the CBOE Hybrid System.
Thus, because non-Hybrid option
classes no longer exist, CBOE Rule
8.85(a)(xi) has no applicability. Its
repeal will have no impact on market
participants.
As regards CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(xii),
which requires DPMs to maintain an
independent backup autoquote system
that it may employ in the event its
proprietary autoquote system fails, the
Commission believes that the CBOE has
made a reasonable determination that
the backup obligation is no longer
necessary. The Commission has no basis
at this time to disagree with the CBOE’s
assessment that the recent adoption and
implementation of the electronic DPM
(‘‘e-DPM’’) program 7 on the Exchange
should provide a more appropriate and
cost effective safeguard against a DPM’s
inability to generate quotes in such
option classes. Pursuant to the
Exchange’s rules governing the program,
CBOE may allocate an option class that
is already allocated to a DPM to one or
more e-DPMs.8 Such e-DPMs provide
efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78f(b)(7).
7 See Exchange Act Release Nos. 49577 (April 19,
2004), 69 FR 22576 (April 26, 2004) (order
approving the process for approving e-DPMs on the
Exchange); 50003 (July 12, 2004), 69 FR 25647 (July
19, 2004) (order approving e-DPM trading rules).
8 See CBOE Rules 8.92 and 8.93.
VerDate Aug<18>2005
15:17 Aug 26, 2005
Jkt 205001
competing quotations accessible by
CBOE market participants.
Thus, the Commission believes that,
given the CBOE’s current trading
environment, the exchange has made a
reasonable determination that the
requirement to maintain a backup
quotation system is unnecessary and
unduly burdensome on DPMs. The
proposed rule changes appear to be
reasonably designed to help to put
DPMs on a more equal competitive
footing other market participants,
including electronic DPMs, which do
not have a backup quotation system
maintenance requirement. Moreover,
the Commission notes that deletion of
the backup autoquote rules would not
affect a DPM’s separate obligation to
provide continuous market quotations
for each of its allocated classes and
respective series.9
Finally, the Commission approves
CBOE’s proposal to remove references to
Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and 8.85(a)(xii) in its
Minor Rule Violations Plan.10
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,11 that the
proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2005–
28) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated
authority.12
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5–4712 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–52316; File No. SR–NYSE–
2005–56]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New
York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to Exchange Rule 629
(‘‘Schedule of Fees’’) To Establish
Processing Fees for Members, Member
Organizations, and Allied Members
That Are Parties to Arbitration
Proceedings
August 22, 2005.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder,
notice is hereby given that on August
10, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed
9 See
CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(i).
CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(10).
11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
10 See
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or the
‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. For purposes
of Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and
Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 NYSE has
designated the proposed rule change as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the selfregulatory organization on its members,
which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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 proposed rule change consists of
amendments to Rule 629 to impose
processing fees on members, member
organizations, and allied members in
connection with arbitration proceedings
in which more than $25,000 is in
dispute. Below is the text of the
proposed rule change to Rule 629.
Proposed new language is in italics;
proposed deletions are in [brackets].
Rule 629 Schedule of fees
(a) through (j) No Change.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Arbitrator Selection and Hearing
Scheduling Processing Fees
(1) Each member, member firm,
member corporation or allied member
(hereinafter referred to as any ‘‘entity’’)
that is a party to an arbitration
proceeding in which more than $25,000
is in dispute will pay the following nonrefundable processing fees:
(a) An arbitrator selection fee of $750,
due at the time the parties are sent the
names of proposed arbitrators; and,
(b) A hearing scheduling fee in the
applicable amount set forth in the
schedule below, due when the parties
are notified of the date and location of
the first hearing session.
Amount of dispute
$1–$25,000 ...............................
$25,000.01–$50,000 .................
$50,000.01–$100,000 ...............
$100,000.01–$500,000 .............
$500,000.01–$1,000,000 ..........
$1,000,000.01–$5,000,000 .......
More than $5,000,000 ..............
Unspecified ...............................
Hearing
scheduling
fee
$0
$1,000
$1,700
$2,750
$4,000
$5,000
$5,500
$2,200
(2) If an associated person of an entity
is a party, the entity or entities that
3 15
4 17
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
29AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51101-51102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4712]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-52319; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-28]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change Relating
to DPM Obligations for Maintaining Backup Autoquote Systems
August 23, 2005.
On April 1, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
a proposed rule change to amend Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and (xii) to remove
the requirement that Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs'')
maintain a back-up quoting system for Hybrid and non-Hybrid option
classes. The Exchange proposes a corresponding amendment to its Minor
Rule Plan to remove references to Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and 8.85(a)(xii).
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on July 22, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52044 (July 15,
2005), 70 FR 42397 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ applicable to a
national securities exchange.\5\ In particular, the
[[Page 51102]]
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections
6(b)(5) and 6(b)(7) of the Act,\6\ which require, among other things,
that an exchange have rules designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, protect investors and the public interest, and
enhance the effectiveness and fairness of the Exchange's disciplinary
procedures. The Commission believes that CBOE's proposed rule changes
should help to improve the efficiency of CBOE's market by eliminating
unnecessary costs now borne by the Exchange's DPMs relating to the
maintenance of back-up quotation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f.
\5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As set forth in the Notice, CBOE Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and (xii) both
impose an obligation on DPMs to maintain independent backup autoquote
systems that can be employed in the event that a DPM's proprietary
autoquote system should fail or be otherwise unavailable. Rule
8.85(a)(xi) governs non-CBOE Hybrid System (``non-Hybrid'') classes,
while Rule 8.85(a)(xii) governs CBOE Hybrid System (``Hybrid'')
classes.
With regard to CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(xi), the Commission notes that the
Exchange has converted all of its DPM option classes to the CBOE Hybrid
System. Thus, because non-Hybrid option classes no longer exist, CBOE
Rule 8.85(a)(xi) has no applicability. Its repeal will have no impact
on market participants.
As regards CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(xii), which requires DPMs to maintain
an independent backup autoquote system that it may employ in the event
its proprietary autoquote system fails, the Commission believes that
the CBOE has made a reasonable determination that the backup obligation
is no longer necessary. The Commission has no basis at this time to
disagree with the CBOE's assessment that the recent adoption and
implementation of the electronic DPM (``e-DPM'') program \7\ on the
Exchange should provide a more appropriate and cost effective safeguard
against a DPM's inability to generate quotes in such option classes.
Pursuant to the Exchange's rules governing the program, CBOE may
allocate an option class that is already allocated to a DPM to one or
more e-DPMs.\8\ Such e-DPMs provide competing quotations accessible by
CBOE market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 49577 (April 19, 2004), 69 FR
22576 (April 26, 2004) (order approving the process for approving e-
DPMs on the Exchange); 50003 (July 12, 2004), 69 FR 25647 (July 19,
2004) (order approving e-DPM trading rules).
\8\ See CBOE Rules 8.92 and 8.93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Commission believes that, given the CBOE's current
trading environment, the exchange has made a reasonable determination
that the requirement to maintain a backup quotation system is
unnecessary and unduly burdensome on DPMs. The proposed rule changes
appear to be reasonably designed to help to put DPMs on a more equal
competitive footing other market participants, including electronic
DPMs, which do not have a backup quotation system maintenance
requirement. Moreover, the Commission notes that deletion of the backup
autoquote rules would not affect a DPM's separate obligation to provide
continuous market quotations for each of its allocated classes and
respective series.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See CBOE Rule 8.85(a)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission approves CBOE's proposal to remove
references to Rules 8.85(a)(xi) and 8.85(a)(xii) in its Minor Rule
Violations Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-28) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-4712 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
