1664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

6 15 U.S.C. 78q(i)(3)(A). 

7We believe that an SIBHC would have a Senior 

Treasury Manager create this record. According to 

the Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), the hourly cost of a Senior 

Treasury Manager is $230, as reflected in the 

SIFMA’s Report on Management and Professional 

Earnings for 2008 (‘‘SIFMA’s Report on Professional 

Earnings), and modified to account for an 1,800- 

hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account 

for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and 

overhead. ($230 × 40 hours) = $9,200. 

8We believe that an SIBHC would have a Floor 

Supervisor, or equivalent, create this record with an 

hourly cost of $195, as reflected in SIFMA’s Report 

on Professional Earnings’’). ($195 × 256) = $49,920. 

9On average, each firm presently maintains 

relationships with approximately 1,000 

counterparties. Further, firms generally already 

maintain documentation regarding their credit 

decisions, including their determination of credit 

risk weights, for those counterparties. We believe 

that an SIBHC would have an Intermediate 

Accountant create this record, which according to 

SIFMA’s Report on Professional Earnings receives 

an hourly rate of $141. ($141 × ((30 minutes × 20 

counterparties)/60 minutes) = $1,410. 

10We believe that an SIBHC would have a 

Programmer Analyst perform this task and 

according to SIFMA’s Report on Professional 

Earnings, a Programmer Analyst receives an hourly 

rate of $193. ($193 × 24) = $4,632. 

11 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

furnish copies thereof, and make such 

reports as the Commission may require 

by rule.6 Rule 17i–5 requires that an 

SIBHC make and keep current certain 

records relating to its business. In 

addition, it requires that an SIBHC 

preserve those and other records for at 

least three years. 

The collections of information 

required pursuant to Rule 17i–5 are 

necessary so that the Commission can 

adequately supervise the activities of 

these SIBHCs. In addition, these 

collections of information are needed to 

allow the Commission to effectively 

determine whether supervision of an 

IBHC as an SIBHC is necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of Section the Act. Rule 17i– 

5 also enhances the Commission’s 

supervision of the SIBHCs’ subsidiary 

broker-dealers through collection of 

additional information and inspections 

of affiliates of those broker-dealers. 

Without this information and 

documentation, the Commission would 

be unable to adequately supervise an 

SIBHC, nor would it be able to 

determine whether continued 

supervision of an IBHC as an SIBHC 

were necessary and appropriate in 

furtherance of the purposes of Section 

17 of the Act. 

In addition to the one firm currently 

supervised by the Commission as a 

SIBHC, we estimate that 2 IBHCs will 

file Notices of Intention with the 

Commission to be supervised by the 

Commission as SIBHCs; for a total of 

three firms. An SIBHC will generally 

require about 40 hours to create and 

document a contingency plan regarding 

funding and liquidity of the affiliate 

group at a cost of $9,200 per SIBHC.7 An 

SIBHC will require, on average, 

approximately 64 hours each quarter to 

create a record regarding stress tests, or 

approximately 256 hours each year and 

a cost of $49,920.8 Further, an SIBHC 

will establish approximately 20 new 

counterparty arrangements each year, 

and will take, on average, about 30 

minutes to create a record regarding the 

basis for credit risk weights for each 

such counterparty for a cost of $1,410.9

Finally, an SIBHC will generally require 

about 24 hours per year to maintain the 

specified records for a cost of $4,632.10

We believe that an IBHC likely will 

upgrade its information technology 

(‘‘IT’’) systems in order to more 

efficiently comply with certain of the 

SIBHC framework rules (including 

Rules 17i–4, 17i–5, 17i–6 and 17i–7), 

and that this would be a one-time cost. 

Depending on the state of development 

of the IBHC’s IT systems, it would cost 

an IBHC between $1 million and $10 

million to upgrade its IT systems to 

comply with the SIBHC framework of 

rules. Thus, on average, it would cost 

each of the three IBHCs about $5.5 

million to upgrade their IT systems, or 

approximately $16.5 million in total. It 

is impossible to determine what 

percentage of the IT systems costs 

would be attributable to each Rule, so 

we allocated the total estimated upgrade 

costs equally (at 25% for each of the 

above-mentioned Rules), with 

$4,125,000 attributable to Rule 17i–5. 

The collection of information is 

mandatory and the information required 

to be provided to the Commission 

pursuant to this Rule is deemed 

confidential pursuant to Section 17(j) of 

the Exchange Act and Section 

552(b)(3)(B) of the Freedom of 

Information Act,11 notwithstanding any 

other provision of law. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. 

Comments should be directed to: 

(i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 

Exchange Commission Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10102, New Executive Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by 

sending an 

e-mail to: 

Shagufta_Ahmed@comb.eop.gov; and 

(ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief 

Information Officer, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley 

Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an 

e-mail to PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. 

Comments must be submitted to OMB 

within 30 days of this notice. 

Dated: January 6, 2010. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–303 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–61292; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex-2009–93] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change Amending Rule 452— 

NYSE Amex Equities and Section 723 

of the NYSE Amex Company Guide 

Regarding Broker Discretionary Voting 

for Election of Directors and on 

Material Amendments to Investment 

Advisory Contracts 

January 5, 2010. 

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 

23, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘NYSE Amex’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in Items I and 

II below, which Items have been 

prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. 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 Exchange proposes to amend 

Rule 452—NYSE Amex Equities and 

Section 723 of the NYSE Amex 

Company Guide (the ‘‘Company Guide’’). 

The text of the proposed rule change is 

available at the Exchange, at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

on the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.sec.gov, and on the Exchange’s 

Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 

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 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1665 

3Section 723 of the Company Guide is identical 

to Rule 452—NYSE Amex Equities and the 

proposed rule change will apply to both. 

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60215 

(July 1, 2009), 74 FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR– 

NYSE–2006–92) (‘‘NYSE Approval Order’’). 

5 In the process of making its determination that 

the election of directors should no longer be 

deemed to be a ‘‘routine matter’’ and that broker 

discretionary voting for the election of directors 

should be eliminated, the NYSE in 2005 created a 

Proxy Working Group to review and make 

recommendations with respect to the NYSE rules 

regulating the proxy voting process. The Proxy 

Working Group contained representatives from a 

number of different constituencies, all of whom 

have significant experience with the proxy voting 

process. One of the recommendations that came 

from the Proxy Working Group was that the 

proposed changes to NYSE Rule 452 should not 

apply to any company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940, and this 

exception was adopted by the NYSE. For a full 

discussion of the role of the Proxy Working Group, 

see the NYSE Rule Filing. 

6NYSE Approval Order, 74 FR at 33298, n. 69. 

7Rule 452.11(2)—NYSE Amex Equities defines a 

‘‘contest’’ as a matter that ‘‘is the subject of a 

counter-solicitation, or is part of a proposal made 

by a stockholder which is being opposed by 

management.’’ 

8For example, in 2002, the Council of 

Institutional Investors publicly criticized in the 

media the NYSE’s definition of ‘‘contests’’ (which is 

exactly identical to NYSE Amex’s definition of the 

term) as ‘‘problematic’’ because it fails to classify as 

contests ‘‘just vote no’’ campaigns, it fails to 

recognize the use of the Internet as a means of 

contesting management, it puts ADP in an 

inappropriate and conflicted role, and it is 

inconsistent with securities laws which recognize 

the validity of exempt solicitations. In a letter to the 

SEC dated June 13, 2003, Institutional Shareholders 

Services expressed concern that because ‘‘the NYSE 

classifies the election of directors as a routine 

voting item unless a full-blown proxy contest has 

erupted,’’ the efforts of shareholders to express 

disapproval of board actions at companies like 

Sprint and Tyco in the 2003 proxy season were 

‘‘watered down by broker votes.’’ Moreover, in their 

presentations to the Proxy Working Group, several 

groups recommended that the definition of a 

contest be expanded or changed, including the 

AFL–CIO and the American Business Conference. 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those 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 parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

NYSE Amex is proposing to amend 

Rule 452—NYSE Amex Equities and 

corresponding Section 723 of the 

Company Guide,3 both entitled ‘‘Giving 

Proxies by Member Organization,’’ to 

eliminate broker discretionary voting for 

the election of directors. Rule 452— 

NYSE Amex Equities (and Section 723 

of the Company Guide) allows brokers 

to vote on ‘‘routine’’ proposals if the 

beneficial owner of the stock has not 

provided specific voting instructions to 

the broker at least 10 days before a 

scheduled meeting. However, Rule 

452.11—NYSE Amex Equities (and 

Commentary .11 to Section 723 of the 

Company Guide) lists, by way of 

example, eighteen (18) specific nonroutine matters as to which a member 

organization may not give a proxy to 

vote without instructions from 

beneficial owners. The proposed rule 

change would amend this list to include 

the election of directors, except in the 

case of a company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940. The 

Exchange is also proposing to amend 

this list to include material amendments 

to investment advisory contracts with 

an investment company in order to 

codify previously existing 

interpretations of the Exchange with 

respect to investment advisory 

contracts. 

The proposed rule change is identical 

to a rule change filed by the New York 

Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) (the ‘‘NYSE 

Rule Filing’’) that was recently approved 

by the Commission 4 and will be 

applicable to proxy voting for 

shareholder meetings held on or after 

January 1, 2010. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the proposed amendment will 

not apply to a meeting that was 

originally scheduled to be held prior to 

January 1, 2010 but was properly 

adjourned to a date on or after that 

date.5

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is in conformity 

with the view of the Commission stated 

in the NYSE Approval Order that ‘‘while 

other self-regulatory organizations 

currently allow discretionary voting, we 

would expect these markets to make 

changes to conform to the NYSE’s new 

rules to eliminate any disparities 

involving voting depending on where 

shares are held.’’ 6

Under the current NYSE Amex and 

SEC proxy rules, brokers must deliver 

proxy materials to beneficial owners 

and request voting instructions in 

return. If voting instructions have not 

been received by the tenth day 

preceding the meeting date, Rule 452— 

NYSE Amex Equities provides that 

brokers may vote on certain matters 

deemed ‘‘routine’’ by the Exchange. One 

of the most important results of broker 

votes of uninstructed shares is their use 

in establishing a quorum at shareholder 

meetings. 

Among the other matters which the 

current Rule 452—NYSE Amex Equities 

treats as routine is an ‘‘uncontested’’ 

election for a company’s board of 

directors.7 Such elections remain the 

general practice in corporate America 

today, with contested elections 

occurring relatively infrequently. 

However, in recent years the 

definition of a ‘‘contested election’’ has 

been questioned by a number of parties 

and interest groups.8 This is because of 

the rise of a number of new types of 

proxy campaigns, including ‘‘just vote 

no’’ campaigns. Because these 

campaigns often do not result in 

competing solicitations, historically 

these efforts have not been considered 

‘‘contests’’ for purposes of Rule 452— 

NYSE Amex Equities, and thus broker 

votes have been counted. This has 

drawn the ire of some investor groups 

since generally brokers vote 

uninstructed shares in accordance with 

the incumbent board’s 

recommendations. 

On ‘‘non-routine’’ matters, which 

generally speaking are those involving a 

contest or any matter which may affect 

substantially the rights or privileges of 

stockholders, NYSE Amex rules prohibit 

brokers from voting without receiving 

instructions from the beneficial owners. 

At present, Rule 452.11—NYSE Amex 

Equities lists by way of example 

eighteen such ‘‘non-routine’’ matters, 

including items such as stockholder 

proposals opposed by management, and 

mergers or consolidations. 

The NYSE has amended NYSE Rule 

452, and corresponding NYSE Listed 

Company Manual Section 402.08, to 

eliminate broker discretionary voting for 

the election of directors, but to except 

from that amendment companies 

registered under the Investment 

Company Act of 1940. The Commission 

has stated in the NYSE Approval Order 

that it expects other markets to make 

changes to their comparable rules to 

conform to the NYSE’s new rules and 

eliminate any disparities involving 

voting. Consequently, NYSE Amex 

proposes herein to amend Rule 452— 

NYSE Amex Equities, and 

corresponding Section 723 of the 

Company Guide (which closely track 

NYSE Rule 452 and NYSE Listed 

Company Manual Section 402.08, 

respectively, prior to their recent 

amendment), to eliminate broker 

discretionary voting for the election of 

directors, but to except from that 

amendment companies registered under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940. 

Effective Date 

The proposed amendment will be 

applicable to proxy voting for 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

1666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30697 

(May 13, 1992), 57 FR 21434 (May 20, 1992) (SR– 

NYSE–1992–05). 

10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52569 

(October 6, 2005), 70 FR 60118 (October 14, 2005) 

(SR–NYSE–2005–61). 

11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52765 

(November 10, 2005), 70 FR 69999 (November 18, 

2005) (SR–Amex–2005–102) (‘‘Amex Interpretation 

Release’’). 12 Id. 

13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 

15 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

17 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 

19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the 

Commission written notice of the Exchange’s intent 

to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied the pre-filing requirement. 

18 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

shareholder meetings held on or after 

January 1, 2010. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the proposed amendment will 

not apply to a meeting that was 

originally scheduled to be held prior to 

January 1, 2010 but was properly 

adjourned to a date on or after that date. 

Material Amendments to Investment 

Contracts 

In addition to the current 18 specific 

actions set out in Supplementary 

Material .11 to NYSE Rule 452, the 

NYSE has long interpreted NYSE Rule 

452 to preclude member organizations 

from voting without instructions in 

certain other situations, including on 

any material amendment to the 

investment advisory contract with an 

investment company.9

In addition, in 2005, the NYSE 

published an interpretation,10 pursuant 

to a request from the SEC’s Division of 

Investment Management, that provided 

that any proposal to obtain shareholder 

approval of an investment company’s 

investment advisory contract with a 

new investment adviser, which 

approval is required by the Investment 

Company Act of 1940, as amended (the 

‘‘1940 Act’’), and the rules thereunder, 

will be deemed to be a ‘‘matter which 

may affect substantially the rights or 

privileges of such stock’’ for purposes of 

NYSE Rule 452 so that a member 

organization may not give a proxy to 

vote shares registered in its name absent 

instruction from the beneficial holder of 

the shares. As a result, for example, a 

member organization of the NYSE may 

not give a proxy to vote shares 

registered in its name, absent 

instruction from the beneficial holder of 

the shares, on any proposal to obtain 

shareholder approval required by the 

1940 Act of an investment advisory 

contract between an investment 

company and a new investment adviser 

due to an assignment of the investment 

company’s investment advisory 

contract, including an assignment 

caused by a change in control of the 

investment adviser that is party to the 

assigned contract. 

Also in 2005, immediately following 

publication of the NYSE’s interpretation 

referenced in the preceding paragraph, 

the Exchange’s predecessor, the 

American Stock Exchange LLC 

(‘‘Amex’’), also filed a rule change with 

the Commission establishing the exact 

same interpretation with respect to 

investment advisory contracts.11 Noting 

that ‘‘[a] proposed rule change filed by 

the NYSE of its interpretation of its rule 

governing proxies by member 

organizations on votes relating to 

changes to investment advisory 

contracts recently became effective,’’ the 

Amex Interpretation Release stated, 

‘‘Following discussions with the staff of 

the Commission’s Division of 

Investment Management, the Amex has 

determined to adopt a comparable 

interpretation of [Amex] Rule 577 to 

conform to the NYSE interpretation.’’ 12

The NYSE has amended NYSE Rule 

452, and corresponding NYSE Listed 

Company Manual Section 402.08, to 

specifically codify these interpretations 

in its rules. Consistent with the previous 

adoption by Amex of these NYSE 

interpretations with respect to 

investment advisory contracts, the 

Exchange proposes herein to amend 

Rule 452—NYSE Amex Equities, and 

corresponding Section 723 of the 

Company Guide (which closely track 

NYSE Rule 452 and NYSE Listed 

Company Manual Section 402.08, 

respectively, prior to their recent 

amendment), to specifically codify these 

interpretations in the Exchange’s rules 

as well. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The basis under the Act for this 

proposed rule change is the requirement 

under Section 6(b)(5) 13 that an 

exchange have rules that are designed to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, to remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest. Specifically, the 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

rule change will protect investors and 

the public interest by ensuring better 

corporate governance and transparency 

of the election process for directors and 

by promoting greater uniformity with 

the proxy rules of other exchanges. In 

particular, for Exchange member firms 

that are also NYSE member firms, 

confusion might arise as to which 

exchange’s proxy voting rules are 

applicable to a company listed on the 

Exchange if there are disparities 

between the rules of the Exchange and 

the NYSE. The proposal should further 

the protection of investors and the 

public interest by assuring that voting 

on matters as critical as the election of 

directors can no longer be determined 

by brokers without instructions from the 

beneficial owner, and thus should 

enhance corporate governance and 

accountability to shareholders. 

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 purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The Exchange has filed the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 14 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.15 Because the 

proposed rule change does not: (i) 

Significantly affect the protection of 

investors or the public interest; (ii) 

impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) by its terms, 

become operative prior to 30 days from 

the date on which it was filed, or such 

shorter time as the Commission may 

designate, if consistent with the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest, the proposed rule change has 

become effective pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 16 and Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.17

A proposed rule change filed under 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 18 normally does not 

become operative prior to 30 days after 

the date of the filing. However, pursuant 

to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),19 the Commission 

may designate a shorter time if such 

action is consistent with the protection 

of investors and the public interest. The 

Exchange has requested the Commission 

to waive the 30-day operative delay so 

that the proposal may become operative 

immediately upon filing. In making this 

request, the Exchange stated, among 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Notices 1667 

20For purposes only of waiving the operative 

delay for this proposal, the Commission has 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

21See supra note 4. 22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

other things, that waiver of the 30-day 

operative delay will allow the change to 

become operative on the same date as 

NYSE’s rule change and conform to the 

Commission’s desire to eliminate any 

disparities involving voting. 

The Commission believes that the 

waiver of the 30-day operative delay 

period is consistent with the protection 

of investors and the public interest.20

The proposal would permit the 

Exchange to comply with the 

Commission’s stated goal that other selfregulatory organizations, that currently 

allow member discretionary voting for 

director elections, conform their rules to 

the NYSE’s new rules to eliminate any 

disparities involving voting depending 

on where the shares are held. Further, 

the proposal would codify previously 

published interpretations with respect 

to voting on investment advisory 

contracts. Finally, the Commission 

notes that the NYSE’s recently adopted 

rule changes, which are identical to the 

Exchange’s proposed changes, were 

subject to full notice and comment, and 

considered and approved by the 

Commission.21 Based on the above, the 

Commission finds that waiving the 30- 

day operative delay period is consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest and the proposal is 

therefore deemed effective upon filing. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission may summarily abrogate 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

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 rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–93 on 

the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–93. 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–NYSEAmex–2009–93 and 

should be submitted on or before 

February 2, 2010. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.22

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–308 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Release No. 34–61296; File No. SR–ISE– 

2009–114] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

International Securities Exchange, 

LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 

Change Relating to Fee Changes 

January 6, 2010. 

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 

31, 2009, International Securities 

Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the Exchange. 

The 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 ISE is proposing to amend its 

Schedule of Fees to increase the 

surcharge fee for transactions in options 

on the Nasdaq-100® Stock Index. The 

text of the proposed rule change is 

available on the Exchange’s Web site 

(http://www.ise.com), at the principal 

office of the Exchange, and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of, and basis for, 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange is proposing to amend 

its Schedule of Fees to increase the 

surcharge fee for transactions in options 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES