Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, on September 5, 2007, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change relating to the Exchange's rules governing doing business with the public. On September 21, 2007, the Commission issued a release noticing the proposed rule change, which was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 27, 2007. The comment period expired on October 18, 2007. The Commission received one comment letter in response to the proposed rule change. On November 13, 2007, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to amend the proposed rule change and respond to the comment letter. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and approves the proposed rule change as amended on an accelerated basis.
II. Description of the CBOE Proposal
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules that govern an Exchange member's conduct in doing business with the public. Specifically, the proposed rule change would require member organizations to integrate the responsibility for supervision of a member organization's public customer options business into its overall supervisory and compliance program. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to strengthen member organizations' supervisory procedures and internal controls as they relate to a member's public customer options business.
A. Integration of Options Supervision
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to create a supervisory structure for options that is similar to that required by New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) rules. The proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement that member organizations qualified to do a public customer business in options must designate a single person to act as Senior Registered Options Principal (“SROP”) for the member organization and that each such member organization designate a specific individual as a CROP. Instead, member organizations would be required to integrate the SROP and CROP functions into their overall supervisory and compliance programs.
The SROP concept was first introduced by CBOE during the early years of the development of the listed options market. Previously, under CBOE rules, member organizations were required to designate one or more persons qualified as ROPs having supervisory responsibilities in respect to the member organization's options business. As the number of ROPs at larger member organizations began to increase, CBOE imposed an additional requirement that member organizations designate one of their ROPs as the SROP. This was intended to eliminate confusion as to where the compliance and supervisory responsibilities lay by centralizing in a single supervisory officer overall responsibility for the supervision of a member organization's options activities. Subsequently, following the recommendation of the Commission's Options Study, CBOE and other options exchanges required member organizations to designate a CROP to be responsible for the member organization's overall compliance program in respect to its options activities. The CROP may be the same person who is designated as SROP.
Since the SROP and CROP requirements were first imposed, the supervisory function in respect to the options activities of most securities firms has been integrated into the matrix of supervisory and compliance functions in respect to the firms' other securities activities. According to CBOE, this not only reflects the maturity of the options market, but also recognizes the ways in which the uses of options themselves have become more integrated with other securities in the implementation of particular strategies. Thus, the current requirement for a separately designated senior supervisor in respect to all aspects of a member organization's options activities, rather than clarifying the allocation of supervisory responsibilities within the member organization, may have just the opposite effect by failing to take into account the way in which these Start Printed Page 72805responsibilities are actually assigned. In addition, according to CBOE, by permitting supervision of a member organization's options activities to be handled in the same manner as the supervision of its other securities activities as well as its futures activities, the proposed rule change ensures that supervisory responsibility over each segment of the member organization's business is assigned to the best qualified persons in the member organization, thereby enhancing the overall quality of supervision. The same holds true for the compliance function.
For example, most member organizations have designated one person to have supervisory responsibility over the application of margin requirements and other matters pertaining to the extension of credit. The proposed rule change would enable a member organization to include within the scope of such a person's duties the supervision over the proper margining of options accounts, thereby assuring that the most qualified person is charged with this responsibility and at the same time eliminating any uncertainty that might now exist as to whether this responsibility lies with the senior credit supervisor or with the SROP.
Similarly, the proposed rule change would allow a member organization to specifically designate one or more individuals as being responsible for approving a ROP's acceptance of discretionary accounts  and exceptions to a member organization's suitability standards for trading uncovered short options. The proposed rule change would allow member organizations the flexibility to assign such responsibilities, which formerly rested with the SROP and/or CROP, to more than one ROP-qualified individual where the member organization believes it advantageous to do so to enhance its supervisory or compliance structure. Typically, a member organization may wish to divide these functions on the basis of geographic region or functional considerations. The proposed amendment to Rule 9.2 would clarify the qualification requirements for individuals designated as ROPs. The proposed amendment to Rule 9.3 would specify the registration requirements for individuals who accept orders from non-broker-dealer customers.
The proposed rule change would require options discretionary accounts, the acceptance of which must be approved by a ROP-qualified individual (other than the ROP who accepted the account), to be supervised in the same manner as the supervision of other securities accounts that are handled on a discretionary basis. The proposed rule change would eliminate the requirement that discretionary options orders be approved on the day of entry by a ROP (with one exception, as described below). According to CBOE, this requirement predates the Options Study and is not consistent with the use of supervisory tools in computerized format or exception reports generated after the close of a trading day. No similar requirement exists for supervision of other securities accounts that are handled on a discretionary basis. Discretionary orders must be reviewed in accordance with a member organization's written supervisory procedures. According to CBOE, the proposed rule change would ensure that supervisory responsibilities are assigned to specific ROP-qualified individuals, thereby enhancing the quality of supervision.
The proposed rule change would revise Exchange Rule 9.10 by adding, as Interpretation and Policy .01, a requirement that any member organization that does not utilize computerized surveillance tools for the frequent and appropriate review of discretionary account activity must establish and implement procedures to require ROP-qualified individuals who have been designated to review discretionary accounts to approve and initial each discretionary order on the day entered. The Exchange believes that any member organization that does not utilize computerized surveillance tools to monitor discretionary account activity should continue to be required to perform the daily manual review of discretionary orders.
Under the proposed rule change, options discretionary accounts would continue to receive frequent appropriate supervisory review by designated ROP-qualified individuals. Additionally, member organizations would continue to be required to designate ROP-qualified individuals to review and approve the acceptance of options discretionary accounts in order to determine whether the ROP accepting the account had a reasonable basis for believing that the customer was able to understand and bear the risks of the proposed strategies or transactions. According to CBOE, this requirement would provide an additional level of supervisory audit over options discretionary accounts that does not exist for other securities discretionary accounts.
In addition, the proposed rule change would require that each member organization submit to the Exchange a written report by April 1 of each year that details the member organization's supervision and compliance effort, including its options compliance program, during the preceding year and reports on the adequacy of the member organization's ongoing compliance processes and procedures.
Proposed Rule 9.8(h) would require that each member organization submit, by April 1 of each year, a copy of the Rule 9.8(g) annual report to one or more of its control persons or, if the member organization has no control person, to the audit committee of its board of directors or its equivalent committee or group.
Proposed Rule 9.8(g) would provide that a member organization that specifically includes its options compliance program in a report that complies with substantially similar requirements of NYSE and NASD rules will be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of Rules 9.8(g) and 9.8(h).
Additionally, where appropriate, the proposed rule change would delete references to SROP and CROP in Exchange Rules 3.6A and 26.10.
Although the proposed rule change would eliminate entirely the positions and titles of the SROP and CROP, member organizations would still be required to designate a single general partner or executive officer to assume overall authority and responsibility for internal supervision, control of the member organization and compliance with securities laws and regulations. Member organizations would also be required to designate specific qualified individuals as having supervisory or compliance responsibilities over each aspect of the member organization's options activities and to set forth the names and titles of these individuals in their written supervisory procedures. This is consistent with the integration of options supervision into the overall supervisory and compliance structure of a member organization. In connection with the approval of the proposed rule change, the Exchange intends to review member organizations' written supervisory and compliance procedures Start Printed Page 72806in the course of the Exchange's routine examination of member organizations to ensure that supervisory and compliance responsibilities are adequately defined.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change recognizes that options are no longer in their infancy, have become more integrated with other securities in the implementation of particular strategies, and thus should not continue to be regulated as though they are a new and experimental product. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is appropriate and does not materially alter the supervisory operations of member organizations. The Exchange believes the supervisory and compliance structure in place for non-options products at most member organizations is not materially different from the structure in place for options.
B. Supervisory Procedures and Internal Controls
The Exchange also proposes to amend certain rules to strengthen member and member organizations' supervisory procedures and internal controls as they relate to a member's public customer options business. The proposed rule changes described below are modeled after NYSE and NASD rules approved by the Commission in 2004. The Exchange believes the following proposal to strengthen member supervisory procedures and internal controls is appropriate and consistent with the preceding proposal to integrate options and non-options sales practice supervision and compliance functions.
The proposed revisions to Exchange Rule 9.8(a)(3) require the development and implementation of written policies and procedures reasonably designed to supervise sales managers and other supervisory personnel who service customer options accounts (i.e., who act in the capacity of a registered representative). This requirement applies to branch office managers, sales managers, regional/district sales managers, or any person performing a similar supervisory function. Such policies and procedures are expected to encompass all options sales-related activities. Proposed Rule 9.8(a)(3)(i) would require that supervisory reviews of producing sales managers be conducted by a qualified ROP who is either senior to, or otherwise “independent of,” the producing manager under review. This provision is intended to ensure that all options sales activity of a producing manager is monitored for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements by persons who do not have a personal interest in such activity.
Proposed Rule 9.8(a)(3)(ii) would provide a limited exception for members so limited in size and resources that there is no qualified person senior to, or otherwise independent of, the producing manager to conduct the review. In this case, the reviews may be conducted by a qualified ROP to the extent practicable. Under proposed Rule 9.8(a)(3)(iii), a member relying on the limited size and resources exception would be required to document the factors used to determine that compliance with each of the “senior” or “otherwise independent” standards of Rule 9.8(a)(3)(i) is not possible, and that the required supervisory systems and procedures in place with respect to any producing manager comply with the provisions of Rule 9.8(a)(3)(i) to the extent practicable.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of Rule 9.8 would provide that a member organization that complies with requirements of NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to the requirements in Rules 9.8(a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) will be deemed to have met such requirements.
Proposed Rule 9.8(c)(i) would require member organizations to develop and maintain adequate controls over each of their business activities. The proposed rule further would require that such controls include the establishment of procedures to independently verify and test the supervisory systems and procedures for those business activities. Member organizations are required to include in the annual report prepared pursuant to Rule 9.8(g) a review of the member organization's efforts in this regard, including a summary of the tests conducted and significant exceptions identified. The Exchange believes proposed Rule 9.8(c)(i) would enhance the quality of member organizations' supervision. Proposed paragraph (c)(ii) of Rule 9.8 would provide that a member organization that complies with requirements of NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to the requirements in Rule 9.8(c)(i) will be deemed to have met such requirements.
Proposed Rule 9.8(d) would establish requirements for branch office inspections similar to the requirements of NYSE Rule 342.24. Specifically, proposed Rule 9.8(d) would require a member organization to inspect each supervisory branch office at least annually and each non-supervisory branch office at least once every three years. The proposed rule further would require that persons who conduct a member organization's annual branch office inspection must be independent of the direct supervision or control of the branch office (i.e., not the branch office manager, or any person who directly or indirectly reports to such manager, or any person to whom such manager directly reports). The Exchange believes that requiring branch office inspections be conducted by someone who has no significant financial interest in the success of a branch office should lead to more objective and vigorous inspections.
Under proposed Rule 9.8(e), any member organization seeking an exemption, pursuant to Rule 9.8(d)(1)(ii), from the annual branch office inspection requirement would be required to submit to the Exchange written policies and procedures for systematic risk-based surveillance of its branch offices, as defined in Rule 9.8(e). Proposed Rule 9.8(f) would require that annual branch office inspection programs include, at a minimum, testing and verification of specified internal controls. Proposed paragraph (d)(3) of Rule 9.8 would provide that a member organization that complies with requirements of NYSE or NASD rules that are substantially similar to the requirements in Rules 9.8(d), (e) and (f) Start Printed Page 72807will be deemed to have met such requirements.
In conjunction with the proposed changes to Rules 9.8(d), (e) and (f), the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.6 to define “branch office” in a way that is substantially similar to the definition of branch office in NYSE Rule 342.10.
Proposed Rule 9.8(g)(4) would require a member organization to designate a Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”). Proposed Rule 9.8(g)(5) would require each member organization's chief executive officer (“CEO”), or equivalent, to certify annually that the member organization has in place processes to: (1) Establish and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable Exchange rules and federal securities laws and regulations; (2) modify such policies and procedures as business, regulatory, and legislative changes and events dictate; and (3) test the effectiveness of such policies and procedures on a periodic basis, the timing of which is reasonably designed to ensure continuing compliance with Exchange rules and federal securities laws and regulations.
Proposed Rule 9.8(g)(5) further would require the CEO to attest that the CEO has conducted one or more meetings with the CCO in the preceding 12 months to discuss the compliance processes in proposed Rule 9.8(g)(5)(i), that the CEO has consulted with the CCO and other officers to the extent necessary to attest to the statements in the certification, and the compliance processes are evidenced in a report, reviewed by the CEO, CCO, and such other officers as the member organization deems necessary to make the certification, that is provided to the member organization's board of directors and audit committee (if such committee exists).
Under proposed Rule 9.8(b)(2), a member, upon a customer's written instructions, may hold mail for a customer who will not be at his or her usual address for no longer than two months if the customer is on vacation or traveling, or three months if the customer is going abroad. This provision helps ensure that members that hold mail for customers who are away from their usual addresses, do so only pursuant to the customer's written instructions and for a specified, relatively short period of time.
Proposed Rule 9.8(b)(3) would require that, before a customer options order is executed, the account name or designation must be placed upon the memorandum for each transaction. In addition, only a qualified ROP may approve any changes in account names or designations. The ROP also must document the essential facts relied upon in approving the changes and maintain the record in a central location. A member is required to preserve any account designation change documentation for a period of not less than three years, with the documentation preserved for the first two years in an easily accessible place, as the term “easily accessible place” is used in SEC Rule 17a-4. The Exchange believes the proposed rule would help to protect account name and designation information from possible fraudulent activity.
Rule 9.10(d) allows member organizations to exercise time and price discretion on orders for the purchase or sale of a definite number of options contracts in a specified security. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.10(d) to limit the duration of this discretionary authority to the day it is granted, absent written authorization to the contrary. In addition, the proposed rule would require any exercise of time and price discretion to be reflected on the customer order ticket. The proposed one-day limitation would not apply to time and price discretion exercised for orders effected with or for an institutional account  pursuant to valid Good-Till-Cancelled instructions issued on a “not held” basis. The Exchange believes that investors will receive greater protection by clarifying the time such discretionary orders remain pending.
III. Summary of Comment Received and CBOE Response
The Commission received one comment on the proposal which generally supported the proposed rule change while raising issues with respect to certain aspects of the proposed rule change. First, the commenter requested that CBOE clarify how the proposed rule change would affect compliance with CBOE Rule 9.21, which requires CROP approval for options-related communications with the public. Second, the commenter suggested that CBOE allow a Branch Office Manager with a Series 8 or Series 9/10 license to approve discretionary options accounts, instead of requiring approval by a Series 4 Registered Options Principal. Third, the commenter urged NYSE, American Stock Exchange and FINRA to adopt changes similar to those included in the CBOE proposal and questioned the compatibility of the proposed changes with other self-regulatory organizations' rules unless similar changes are adopted.
In Amendment No. 1, CBOE responded to the issues raised by the commenter. With respect to the first issue regarding CROP approval under CBOE Rule 9.21, CBOE proposed to amend the rule to permit a ROP designated by the member or member organization's written supervisory procedures to perform such functions. With respect to the second issue regarding discretionary options accounts, CBOE proposed to amend proposed Rule 9.2.02 to clarify that the review of the acceptance of a options discretionary account must be performed by a Series 4 qualified ROP. However, members would be free to assign the function of accepting options discretionary accounts to individuals who are Series 9/10 qualified ROPs. With respect to the third issue dealing with rules of other self-regulatory organizations, CBOE stated that comments concerning changes to rules administered by other self-regulatory organizations were outside the scope of the proposed rule change.
IV. Discussion and Commission Findings
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. In particular, the Commission finds the Start Printed Page 72808proposed rule change, as amended, would integrate the supervision and compliance functions relating to member organizations' public customer options activities into the overall supervisory structure of a member organization, thereby eliminating any uncertainty over where supervisory responsibility lies. In addition, the proposed rule change would foster the strengthening of members' and member organizations' internal controls and supervisory systems. As such, the Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with and further the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after its publication in the Federal Register. Amendment No. 1 clarifies the operation of the proposed rule change in response to a comment. Amendment No. 1 does not contain major modifications and these modifications would not appreciably affect the protection to investors provided by the proposed rule change as published in the Federal Register. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to approve the proposed rule change as soon as possible to expedite its implementation. Accordingly, the Commission believes good cause exists, consistent with sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b) of the Act to approve Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
V. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 1
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
- Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
- Send an e-mail to email@example.com. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-106 on the subject line.
- Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-106. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-106 and should be submitted on or before January 11, 2008.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-106), as amended by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.Start Signature
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
3. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56492 (Sept. 21, 2007), 72 FR 54952 (Sept. 27, 2007).Back to Citation
4. See Letter to Nancy Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Melissa MacGregor, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Oct. 16, 2007) (“SIFMA Letter”).Back to Citation
5. Amendment No. 1 proposes revisions to CBOE Rule 9.2.02 to clarify the review of the acceptance of an options discretionary account must be performed by a Series 4 Registered Options Principal (“ROP”) and to CBOE Rule 9.21 to replace references to a Compliance Registered Options Principal (“CROP”) with references to a ROP. In addition, Amendment No. 1 responds to the SIFMA Letter.Back to Citation
6. See NYSE Rule 342 and NASD Rule 3010. On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by NASD to amend NASD's Certificate of Incorporation to reflect its name change to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc., or FINRA, in connection with the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007). The FINRA rulebook currently consists of both NASD Rules and certain NYSE Rules that FINRA has incorporated. See FINRA Rules, http://www.finra.org/RulesRegulation/FINRARules/index.htm (last visited Dec. 10, 2007).Back to Citation
7. Report of the Special Study of the Options Market (“Options Study”), p. 316, n. 11 (December 22, 1978).Back to Citation
8. Id. at p. 335.Back to Citation
9. See proposed Rule 9.10(a).Back to Citation
10. See proposed Rule 9.7(f)(3).Back to Citation
11. See proposed Rules 9.2.01 and 9.2.02.Back to Citation
12. See proposed Rule 9.3.01.Back to Citation
13. See, e.g., NYSE Rule 408.Back to Citation
14. See proposed Rule 9.8(g), which is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.30.Back to Citation
15. Proposed Rule 9.8(h) is modeled after NYSE Rule 354.Back to Citation
16. For example, the proposed rule change, as amended, replaces references to CROP in Rule 9.21 with references to ROP.Back to Citation
17. See proposed Rule 9.8(a).Back to Citation
18. See proposed Rule 9.8.01.Back to Citation
19. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49882 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 35108 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2002-36) (Approval Order), and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49883 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 35092 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NASD-2002-162) (Approval Order).Back to Citation
20. Proposed Rule 9.8(a)(3) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.19.Back to Citation
21. An “otherwise independent” person is defined in proposed Rule 9.8(a)(3)(i) as one who: may not report either directly or indirectly to the producing manager under review; must be situated in an office other than the office of the producing manager; must not otherwise have supervisory responsibility over the activity being reviewed; and must alternate such review responsibility with another qualified person every two years or less. Further, if a person designated to review a producing manager receives an override or other income derived from that producing manager's customer activity that represents more than 10% of the designated person's gross income derived from the member organization over the course of a rolling twelve-month period, the member organization must establish alternative senior or otherwise independent supervision of that producing manager to be conducted by a qualified ROP other than the designated person receiving the income.Back to Citation
22. Proposed Rule 9.8(c)(i) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.23.Back to Citation
23. Proposed Rules 9.8(d)(1)(i) and (ii) would provide members with two exceptions from the annual branch office inspection requirement: a member may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Exchange that other arrangements may satisfy the Rule's requirements for a particular branch office, or based upon a member organization's written policies and procedures providing for a systematic risk-based surveillance system, the member organization submits a proposal to the Exchange and receives, in writing, an exemption from this requirement pursuant to Rule 9.8(e).Back to Citation
24. Proposed Rules 9.8(e) and (f) are modeled after NYSE Rules 342.25 and 342.26.Back to Citation
25. The proposed rule change would revise Rule 3.6A(b) to add Chief Compliance Officer as a new associated person status under Chapter 9 of Exchange Rules.Back to Citation
26. Proposed Rule 9.8(g)(5) is modeled after NASD Rule 3013 and NYSE Rule 342.30(e).Back to Citation
27. Proposed Rule 9.8(b)(2) is modeled after NASD Rule 3110(i).Back to Citation
28. Proposed Rule 9.8(b)(3) is modeled after NASD Rule 3110(j).Back to Citation
29. “Institutional account” is defined in proposed Rule 9.10(d) as “the account of: (i) a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered investment company; (ii) an investment adviser registered either with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or with a state securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions); or (iii) any other entity (whether a natural person, corporation, partnership, trust or otherwise) with total assets of at least $50 million.”Back to Citation
30. Proposed Rule 9.10(d) is modeled after NASD Rule 2510(d)(1).Back to Citation
31. See SIFMA Letter.Back to Citation
32. See id.Back to Citation
33. See id.Back to Citation
34. The text of Amendment No. 1 is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room and http://www.cboe.org/legal.Back to Citation
35. In approving this rule change, as amended, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).Back to Citation
[FR Doc. E7-24790 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P