[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69059-69063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28896]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-46787; File No. SR-OC-2002-01]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule 
Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, and Notice of Filing and 
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 3 Thereto, by 
OneChicago, LLC Relating to Customer Margin Requirements for Security 
Futures

November 7, 2002.
    On August 30, 2002, OneChicago, LLC (``OneChicago'' or 
``Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to customer margin 
requirements for security futures. On September 25, 2002, OneChicago 
submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On September 
25, 2002, OneChicago submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule 
change.\4\ The proposed rule change was

[[Page 69060]]

published for comment in the Federal Register on October 1, 2002.\5\ 
The Commission received nine comment letters from ten commenters on the 
proposed rule change.\6\ On November 7, 2002, OneChicago submitted 
Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.\7\ In addition, OneChicago 
submitted a letter in response to the commenters.\8\ This order 
approves the proposed rule change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto, 
accelerates approval of Amendment No. 3, and solicits comments from 
interested persons on Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See letter from Kieran P. Hennigan, Sullivan & Cromwell, to 
Assistant Director for Security Futures Products, Division of Market 
Regulation (``Division''), Commission, dated September 24, 2002, 
(``Amendment No. 1'').
    \4\ See letter from Frank Ochsenfeld, Sullivan & Cromwell, 
attention to T.R. Lazo, Senior Special Counsel, Division, 
Commission, dated September 24, 2002, (``Amendment No. 2'').
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46555 (September 26, 
2002), 67 FR 61707.
    \6\ See letters to Jonathan Katz, Secretary, Commission, from: 
Philip D. DeFeo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Stock 
Exchange, dated October 15, 2002 (``PCX Letter''); Marc Menchel, 
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Association of 
Securities Dealers, dated October 23, 2002 (``NASD Letter''); 
Richard Ketchum, Deputy Vice Chairman and President, The Nasdaq 
Stock Market, Inc., dated October 23, 2002 (``Nasdaq Letter''); 
Michael J. Simon, Senior Vice President and Secretary, International 
Securities Exchange, Inc., dated October 22, 2002 (``ISE Letter''); 
Michael J. Ryan, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 
American Stock Exchange, Inc., dated October 22, 2002 (``Amex 
Letter''); John P. Davidson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley & Co. 
Inc., and Mitchell J. Lieberman, Managing Director, Goldman, Sachs & 
Co., dated October 23, 2002 (``Morgan/Goldman Letter''); Kathleen M. 
Hamm, Senior Vice President, Nasdaq Liffe Markets, LLC, dated 
October 22, 2002 (``NQLX Letter''); Darla C. Stuckey, Corporate 
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, Inc., dated October 24, 2002 
(``NYSE Letter''); and Michael R. Schaefer, Managing Director, 
Salomon Smith Barney, dated October 25, 2002 (``SSB Letter'').
    \7\ See letter from Frank Ochsenfeld, Sullivan & Cromwell, 
attention to T.R. Lazo, Senior Special Counsel, Division, 
Commission, dated November 7, 2002, (``Amendment No. 3''). In 
Amendment No. 3, OneChicago modified certain aspects of its 
exclusion for market making activity.
    \8\ Letter from C. Robert Paul, General Counsel, OneChicago, to 
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated November 7, 2002 
(``OneChicago Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Introduction

    On August 1, 2002, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
(``CFTC'') and SEC (collectively, the ``Commissions'') jointly adopted 
customer margin requirements for security futures.\9\ Under the 
Commissions' ``account specific'' approach, the Commissions' margin 
rules apply certain core requirements to all security futures, and 
direct that the more specific requirements depend on the type of 
account in which the security futures are held (i.e., a futures account 
or securities account).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46292, 67 FR 53146 
(August 14, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal

    The proposed rule change sets forth margin requirements for 
security futures traded on OneChicago that are held in futures 
accounts.\10\ Specifically, the proposed rule change sets the minimum 
initial and maintenance customer margin rates for such security futures 
and provides for lower margin levels for permitted strategy-based 
offset positions. The proposed rules exclude certain financial 
relations to which the Commissions' margin rules do not apply. The 
proposed rule change also establishes standards under which members may 
qualify as Security Futures Dealers and therefore be excluded from 
OneChicago's margin rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The proposed rule change limits the scope of OneChicago's 
customer margin rules to positions in futures accounts, except with 
respect to the exclusion for market making activity (which is 
discussed below) where the proposed rule change provides that the 
rules apply to positions in both futures accounts and securities 
accounts. However, the Commission notes that OneChicago's market 
maker exclusion will apply to a member's positions in securities 
accounts only to the extent recognized by the rules of the member's 
designated examining authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin Levels

    The Commissions' margin rules require that customers deposit in 
their accounts minimum margin of 20 percent of the current market value 
of security futures.\11\ In addition, the Commissions' rules permit 
national securities exchanges to set margin levels below 20 percent of 
the current market value of security futures for certain offsetting 
positions in security futures and other securities or futures. The 
proposed rule change establishes a minimum margin rate of 20 percent 
for both long and short positions in security futures, except with 
respect to specified, permitted offsetting positions. Under the 
proposed rule change, OneChicago permits reduced margin levels for 
eighteen specific offsetting positions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 403(b)(1) under the Act and Rule 41.45(b)(1) under the 
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') 17 CFR 240.403(b)(1) and 17 CFR 
41.45(b)(1).
    \12\ In its release adopting the customer margin rules for 
security futures, the Commissions' published a table of eighteen 
offsetting positions and corresponding margin levels that are 
consistent with comparable offsets permitted for positions involving 
exchange-traded options. The proposed rule change includes all of 
the offsetting positions that the Commissions included in their 
table. However, OneChicago's customer margin rules will only apply 
to positions held in futures accounts. Because any offset that 
includes a security (other than a security future) must be carried 
in a securities account, OneChicago's rule applies only to those 
offsetting positions that may be carried in a futures account (i.e., 
offsets that do not include securities other than security futures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Futures Dealers

    As noted above, the proposed rule change provides an exclusion from 
OneChicago's margin rules for market makers. Under the proposed rule 
change, OneChicago's market maker exclusion provides that in order to 
qualify for the exclusion from the margin rules, a person must (1) be a 
OneChicago member that is registered with the Exchange as a dealer in 
security futures; (2) be registered as a floor trader or a floor broker 
with the CFTC under Section 4f(a)(1) of the CEA or as a dealer with the 
Commission under Section 15(b) of the Act; (3) maintain records 
sufficient to prove compliance with the requirements of OneChicago Rule 
515(n) and Rule 41.42(c)(2)(v) under the CEA and Rule 400(c)(2)(v) 
under the Act, as applicable, ``including without limitation trading 
account statements and other financial records sufficient to detail 
activity;''\13\ and (4) hold itself out as being willing to buy and 
sell security futures for its own account on a regular or continuous 
basis. In addition, the market maker exclusion provides that any market 
maker that fails to comply with the Rules of the Exchange or the margin 
rules adopted by the Commission and the CFTC shall be subject to 
disciplinary action in accordance with Chapter 7 of OneChicago's rules, 
and that appropriate sanctions in the case of any such failure shall 
include, without limitation, a revocation of such market maker's 
registration as a dealer in security futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ OneChicago added the quoted language to this requirement of 
the market maker exclusion in Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally submitted, the market maker exclusion further 
provided that a market maker would be considered to be holding itself 
out as being willing to buy and sell security futures for its own 
account on a regular or continuous basis if either (1) at least 75% of 
its gross revenue on an annual basis is derived from business 
activities or occupations from trading listed financial derivatives and 
the instruments underlying those derivatives, including security 
futures, stock index futures and options, stock and index options, 
stocks, foreign currency futures and options, foreign currencies, 
interest rate futures and options, fixed income instruments and 
commodity futures and options; or (2) except for unusual circumstances, 
at least fifty percent (50%) of its trading activity on OneChicago in 
any calendar quarter is in classes of security futures

[[Page 69061]]

products to which it is assigned under a market making program adopted 
by OneChicago pursuant to Rule 514.
    In Amendment No. 3, OneChicago amended this aspect of its proposed 
rule change. As amended, the market maker exclusion now provides three 
alternative ways for a member to satisfy the requirement that a 
security futures dealer hold itself out as being willing to buy and 
sell security futures for its own account on a regular or continuous 
basis. Under the first alternative, the market maker must (1) provide 
continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day for all 
delivery months of security futures representing a meaningful 
proportion of the total trading volume on the Exchange,\14\ subject to 
relaxation during unusual market conditions as determined by OneChicago 
(such as a fast market in either a security future an underlying 
security) at which times the market maker must use its best efforts to 
quote continuously and competitively; and (2) when providing 
quotations, quote with a maximum bid/ask spread of no more than the 
greater of $0.20 or 150% of the bid/ask spread in the primary market 
for the security underlying each security future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Beginning on the 181st calendar day after the commencement 
of trading on the Exchange, a ``meaningful proportion of the total 
trading volume on the Exchange from time to time'' shall mean a 
minimum of 20% of such trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative, the market maker must (1) respond to 
at least 75% of the requests for quotation for all delivery months of 
security futures representing a meaningful proportion of the total 
trading volume on the Exchange \15\, subject to relaxation during 
unusual market conditions as determined by the OneChicago (such as a 
fast market in either a security future or an underlying security) at 
which times such Market Maker must use its best efforts to quote 
competitively; and (2) when responding to requests for quotation, quote 
within five seconds with a maximum bid/ask spread of no more than the 
greater of $0.20 or 150% of the bid/ask spread in the primary market 
for the security underlying each security future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Beginning on the 181st calendar day after the commencement 
of trading on the Exchange, a ``meaningful proportion of the total 
trading volume on the Exchange from time to time'' shall mean a 
minimum of 20% of such trading volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the third alternative, the market maker is assigned to a 
group of security futures that is either unlimited in nature 
(``Unlimited Assignment'') or is assigned to no more than 20% of the 
security futures listed on the Exchange (``Limited Assignment''). In 
addition, this alternative provides that: (a) At least 75% of the 
market maker's total trading activity in OneChicago products is in its 
assigned security futures, measured on a quarterly basis; (b) during at 
least 50% of the trading day the market maker has bids or offers in the 
market that are at or near the best market, except in unusual market 
conditions (such as a fast market in either a security future or an 
underlying security), with respect to at least 25% (in the case of an 
Unlimited Assignment) or at least one (in the case of a Limited 
Assignment) of its assigned security futures; and (c) the first two 
requirements are satisfied on at least 90% (in the case of an Unlimited 
Assignment) or 80% (in the case of a Limited Assignment) of the trading 
days in each calendar quarter.

II. Summary of Comments

    As noted above, the Commission received nine comment letters from 
ten commenters on the proposed rule change,\16\ and OneChicago 
submitted a letter in response to the comments.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ PCX Letter, NASD Letter, Nasdaq Letter, ISE Letter, Amex 
Letter, Morgan/Goldman Letter, NQLX Letter, NYSE Letter, and SSB 
Letter. See supra note 6. The SSB Letter stated that it agreed 
generally with the comments expressed in the Morgan/Goldman Letter.
    \17\ OneChicago Letter, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Exclusion

    All of the comments expressed concern with OneChicago's proposed 
market maker exclusion. In particular, the commenters objected to the 
provision that would allow OneChicago members to qualify for the market 
maker exclusion based on the amount of revenue they derive from trading 
listed financial derivatives and underlying instruments. Six comments 
expressed the view that this test was inconsistent with the guidelines 
provided by the Commission and the CFTC,\18\ and six comments 
maintained that the proposed revenue requirement was not consistent 
with the margin requirements for comparable exchange-traded options and 
therefore did not satisfy the requirements of section 7(c)(2) of the 
Act.\19\ Commenters argued that the revenue test would allow OneChicago 
members to qualify for the market maker exclusion without actually 
providing liquidity to the market for security futures.\20\ Other 
commenters contended that the revenue test would increase systemic risk 
in the marketplace for security futures, and therefore did not satisfy 
section 7(c)(2) of the Act, by allowing an excessively high number of 
market professionals to trade security futures with reduced margin 
requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NASD Letter, Morgan/Goldman Letter, NQLX Letter, NYSE 
Letter, Nasdaq Letter, SSB Letter, and Amex Letter.
    \19\ PCX Letter, NASD Letter, ISE Letter, Amex Letter, Morgan/
Goldman Letter, and SSB Letter.
    \20\ PCX Letter, ISE Letter, and NQLX Letter, Morgan/Goldman 
Letter.
    \21\ Morgan/Goldman Letter, NASD Letter, SSB Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments also expressed concern with the provision that would 
allow a OneChicago member to qualify for the market maker exclusion if 
at least 50% of its trading activity per quarter was in contracts to 
which it is assigned pursuant to a market making program adopted by 
OneChicago.\22\ Those comments generally expressed the belief that the 
requirement was too vague and asked the Commission not to approve it 
until OneChicago had explained the nature of its market making program 
more fully.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ PCX Letter, Amex Letter, and NQLX Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenters' concerns, OneChicago modified the 
tests that a member must satisfy to qualify for the market maker 
exclusion by eliminating the test based on revenue and revising the 
test based on trading activity. OneChicago stated that it believes that 
its revised test is consistent with the rules of the options exchanges. 
In addition, OneChicago noted that it requested approval of the revised 
tests on a six-month pilot basis and stated that it intends to use this 
pilot program to monitor carefully the operation and affect of the 
revised tests. OneChicago, in response to commenters' concerns. The 
Commission believes that Amendment No. 3 addresses the commenters' 
concerns by modifying the requirements of the market maker exclusion, 
particularly by eliminating the revenue test, and notes that any 
changes or additions to OneChicago's current market making program 
would be filed with the Commission for approval under section 19(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    In addition, two comments expressed the view that OneChicago's 
proposed market maker exclusion would encourage imprudent risk taking, 
speculation, and leverage because there would be no net capital 
requirements imposed either on a floor broker that qualifies for the 
market maker exclusion or on its carrying broker-dealer or FCM.\23\ The 
commenters' concern is that the regulatory capital requirements for 
certain security futures market participants is inadequate. Moreover, 
those commenters expressed concern that in the event of a bankruptcy of 
a carrying firm, a bankruptcy receiver or

[[Page 69062]]

trustee would pay out to the floor broker a pro rata share of the 
available pool of assets on the same terms as customers, 
notwithstanding that the floor broker was not required to post customer 
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Morgan/Goldman Letter and SSB Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, OneChicago stated that Rule 1.17 under the CEA and the 
minimum financial requirements of the futures exchanges all require 
that a futures commission merchant maintain adjusted net capital of at 
least four percent of customer segregated funds (an amount which 
includes required margin deposits as well as open trade equity) and to 
deduct from net capital the amount of undermargined and deficit 
customer and non-customer accounts. In addition, OneChicago stated that 
a market maker is entitled to nothing more than its pro rata share of 
customer property in a bankruptcy proceeding, and that if a market 
maker had reduced margin requirements its share of the customer estate 
would be correspondingly reduced.
    The Commission believes that the determination of what amount of 
capital is sufficient for a market participant is within the purview of 
the participant's primary regulator and does not believe that it would 
be appropriate to require OneChicago's margin rules to address these 
concerns indirectly. In addition, the Commission believes that any 
concerns regarding a market maker's share of a customer's estate in a 
bankruptcy proceeding would be more properly addressed by changes to 
the insolvency regime applicable to those market participants.
    Finally, three commenters expressed concern with the fact that 
certain aspects of OneChicago's margin rules would apply to positions 
carried in securities accounts. One commenter objected to OneChicago's 
proposal to adopt margin levels for offsetting positions that may only 
be held in securities accounts even though its rules apply only to 
positions in futures accounts because the proposal gave the impression 
that those offsets were permitted to be carried in a futures 
account.\24\ Two commenters also objected to the provisions in 
OneChicago's rules asserting that, with respect to the exclusion for 
market makers, OneChicago's margin rules would apply to positions in 
both futures accounts and securities accounts.\25\ These comments 
argued that this aspect of the proposed rule change would conflict with 
current margin requirements governing securities accounts of broker-
dealers and would create confusion by subjecting those market makers to 
the margin requirements of both OneChicago and their designated 
examining authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NQLX Letter.
    \25\ NASD Letter, Nasdaq Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, OneChicago stated that it prefers to 
retain the full range of permitted margin offsets, so that they can be 
made effective if OneChicago later amends its margin rules to apply 
them to securities accounts or if the Commission at some future date 
takes steps that would permit these margin offsets to be carried in a 
futures account. In addition, OneChicago stated its view that it should 
be free to adopt its own rule and to apply that rule to its own 
members. However, OneChicago also clarified that it was not suggesting 
that OneChicago's margin rule supersedes that of any other self-
regulatory organization. Rather, OneChicago explained that there may be 
broker-dealers that do not do a customer business that are members only 
of OneChicago and that these broker-dealers should be able to claim the 
advantages of market maker margin treatment without regard to whether 
they carry their positions in a securities or a futures account.
    The Commission reiterates that because any offset that includes a 
security (other than a security future) must be carried in a securities 
account, OneChicago's rule applies only to those offsetting positions 
that may be carried in a futures account (i.e., offsets that do not 
include securities other than security futures). In addition, the 
Commission emphasizes that approval of the proposed rule change does 
not affect the applicability of the rules of another self-regulatory 
organization to its members. As a result, OneChicago's market maker 
exclusion will apply to a member's positions in securities accounts 
only to the extent recognized by the rules of the member's designated 
examining authority.

III. Discussion

    Under section 19(b)(2) of the Act, the Commission is directed to 
approve the proposed rule change if it finds that it is consistent with 
the requirements of the Act and the rules and the rules and regulations 
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\26\ Section 
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ requires, among other things, that the rules of 
a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and 
the public interest.\28\ In addition, section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act 
\29\ provides, among other things, that the margin rules for security 
futures must preserve the financial integrity of markets trading 
security futures, prevent systemic risk, and be consistent with the 
margin requirements for comparable exchange-traded options. Section 
7(c)(2)(B) also provides that the margin levels for security futures 
may be no lower than the lowest level of margin, exclusive of premium, 
required for any comparable exchange-traded option. For the reasons 
discussed below, after careful review and consideration of the 
commenters' views, the Commission finds that the rule change is 
consistent with OneChicago's obligations under the Act and the rules 
and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has 
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78g(c)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the rule change is generally 
consistent with the customer margin rules for security futures adopted 
by the Commission and the CFTC. In particular, the Commission notes 
that, consistent with Rule 403 under the Act, OneChicago's proposed 
rule provides for a minimum margin level of 20% of current market value 
for all positions in security futures. The Commission believes that 20% 
is the minimum margin level necessary to satisfy the requirements of 
section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Rule 403 under the Act \30\ also 
provides that a national securities exchange may set margin levels 
lower than 20% of the current market value of the security future for 
an offsetting position involving security futures and related 
positions, provided that an exchange's margin levels for offsetting 
positions meet the criteria set forth in section 7(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
The offsets proposed by OneChicago are consistent with the strategy-
based offsets permitted for comparable offset positions involving 
exchange-traded options and therefore consistent with section 
7(c)(2)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.403(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission believes that the standards for 
OneChicago's market maker exclusion, as amended by Amendment No. 3, are 
consistent with the Act, and Rule 400(c)(2)(v) thereunder.\31\ 
Specifically, the Commissions' margin rules do not apply to a member of 
a national securities exchange that is registered with such exchange as 
a ``security futures dealer'' pursuant to exchange rules that must meet 
several criteria, including a requirement that a security futures 
dealer be required ``to hold itself out as

[[Page 69063]]

being willing to buy and sell security futures for its own account on a 
regular or continuous basis.'' The Commission believes that the 
affirmative obligations required by OneChicago Rule 515(n) satisfy this 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.400(c)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 3

    OneChicago has asked the Commission to approve Amendment No. 3 to 
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of 
publication of notice of the filing to accommodate the timetable for 
the trading of security futures. Amendment No. 3 modifies two aspects 
of OneChicago's market maker exclusion. First, Amendment No. 3 
clarifies the recordkeeping requirements that market makers must meet 
in order to qualify for the exclusion. The amendments to the 
recordkeeping requirement of the market maker exclusion clarify the 
types of records that, consistent with Rule 400(c)(2)(v)(2) under the 
Act, a market maker must keep in order to qualify for the exclusion for 
security futures dealers from OneChicago's margin requirements.
    Second, Amendment No. 3 modifies the trading obligations that 
market maker must meet to qualify for the exclusion. The amendments to 
the trading obligations are in response to the commenters' concerns, 
and clarify the minimum trading requirements imposed on market makers 
in order to satisfy the requirement of the exclusion that a market 
maker hold itself out as being willing to buy and sell security futures 
for its own account on a regular or continuous basis. OneChicago has 
also requested that the Commission approve the amendments to the 
trading obligations as a pilot program for six months beginning on the 
date of this order.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule 
change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of 
publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The 
Commission believes that accelerated approval of the proposed rule 
change should enable OneChicago to begin trading security futures from 
the outset of security futures trading.\32\ In addition, the Commission 
believes that granting accelerated approval to Amendment No. 3 thereto 
should clarify obligations the obligations that OneChicago members must 
meet in order to qualify for the market maker exclusion from the margin 
requirements. In addition, the Commission notes that the modifications 
to the trading obligations of the market maker exclusion set forth in 
Amendment No. 3 will take effect as a temporary pilot to give members 
of the public an opportunity to comment on the substance of that aspect 
of Amendment No. 3 before OneChicago requests permanent approval. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes that there is good cause, 
consistent with Section 19(b) of the Act, to approve Amendment No. 3 to 
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Commission understands that trading in security futures 
is scheduled to begin on November 8, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 3 
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-OC-2002-01 and should be 
submitted by December 5 2002.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act\33\, that the proposed rule change, as amended, (File No. SR-OC-
2002-01) be, and hereby is, approved, provided, however, that 
OneChicago Rule 515(n)(ii)(C) is approved until May 7, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-28896 Filed 11-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P