[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74381-74382]
[DOCID:fr31de07-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57036; File No. SR-CHX-2007-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Rule 25 To
Eliminate a Requirement That a Participant Have a Formal Written
Agreement To Use Another Participant's Give-Up

December 21, 2007.
    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 12, 2007, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 proposes to amend CHX Rule 25 to eliminate a
requirement that a participant have a formal written agreement to use
another participant's give-up.\3\ The text of this proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange's Web site, http://www.chx.com, the

Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e-mail from Ellen Neely, President and General Counsel,
CHX, to Richard Holley III, Senior Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, dated December 20, 2007 (defining a
``give-up'' as a multi-character symbol that identifies a CHX
participant firm. In the context of this rule, if a participant
executes a trade using another participant's give-up, the firm is
identifying the other firm as a party to the trade and allocating
the trade to the other firm's account for clearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    When the CHX developed rules for its new trading model, it included
a provision that requires a participant that executes a trade using
another participant's give-up to have a written agreement authorizing
the use of the give-up. The rule mirrors similar requirements in some
other automated systems--it is designed to provide a measure of
additional assurance that orders will clear and settle, even when they
are submitted from remote locations, by firms that do not know each
other.
    Soon after implementing its new trading model, the Exchange filed a
proposal to limit the way in which the rule would apply to its
institutional brokers.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange sought to
incorporate a new interpretation and policy that would confirm that
institutional brokers could use other participants' give-ups in
accordance with reasonable written order-handling procedures, without
specifically requiring that a written agreement be in place. The
Exchange noted in that filing that, while it believed that the rule
provided an appropriate general standard, it was not intended to
require a potentially substantial change in the long-standing business
practices of the Exchange's institutional brokers, who often execute a
trade using another participant's give-up, pursuant to instructions
from such participant or its customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See File No. SR-CHX-2006-36. The Exchange has withdrawn this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon further reflection, the Exchange now proposes to eliminate the
``give-up agreement'' rule altogether. The Exchange continues to
believe that the rule sets a good business standard, but does not
believe that it is appropriate to put a hard-and-fast rule to that
effect in place because of its potential impact on the day-to-day
business practices of some of its institutional brokers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\
in particular, in that it is 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 by allowing
firms to develop their own business practices in connection with the
execution of formal written agreements with the firms that send them
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

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 Amex 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 disproved.

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. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2007-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     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-CHX-2007-27. 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 offices 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-CHX-2007-27 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-25373 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ICF Resources prepared the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM) runs and analysis for this study of the air emissions of the electric power industry. John Blaney was ICF's project manager   managing the development of the special modeling framework that the Agency used to conduct this study and preparation of the modeling runs. Bishal Thapa managed the day to day modeling analysis and developed the pollution control cost and performance modeling inputs for the power plant retrofit options for controlling emissions of SO2, NOX, mercury, and carbon. Boddu Venkatesh served as senior advisor on the design of the modeling analysis. Kiet Quach designed the retrofit structure used in the model as well as the front end pre processing tool used to integrate all of the model inputs. Kamala Jayaraman and Bishal Thapa conducted the mercury content of coal clustering analysis. Adam Kreczko modified IPM to use the cluster analysis results for forecasting mercury emissions from coal fired electric generating units. Mei Mei Lim assisted with analyzing model results, and she along with Becky Braddock assisted with report preparation.

EPA's Office of Research and Development updated the mercury control cost and removal functions that EPA uses in IPM for this analysis. Ravi Srivastava, Charles Sedman, and James Kilgroe conducted this work for ORD.

Several people in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation were important to the preparation of the report. Ellen Brown was instrumental in developing this study's design, reviewing the results, and working on the presentation of material in the study. William Maxwell, Richard Vetter, Brian McLean, Peter Trsirigotis, and Mary Jo Kroweski provided input to the design of the study and critical review of the results. Skip Laitner helped prepare the carbon reduction options analysis that appears in the report. The project was managed by Sam Napolitano.