10104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

3. Applicants request an order under 

section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 to permit 

the proposed expense sharing 

arrangements. Applicants state that 

participation by the Top-Tier Funds, the 

Underlying Funds and Forward 

Management in the proposed expense 

sharing arrangements is consistent with 

the provisions, policies and purposes of 

the Act, and that the terms of the 

Special Servicing Agreement and the 

conditions set forth below will ensure 

that no participant will participate on a 

basis less advantageous than that of 

other participants. 

Applicants’ Conditions 

Applicants agree that any order 

granting the requested relief will be 

subject to the following conditions: 

1. No Fund will enter into a Special 

Servicing Agreement unless the Special 

Servicing Agreement: (a) Precisely 

describes the services provided to the 

Top-Tier Funds and the Underlying 

Fund Payments; (b) provides that no 

affiliated person of the Top-Tier Funds, 

or affiliated person of such person, will 

receive, directly or indirectly, any 

portion of the Underlying Fund 

Payments, except for bona fide transfer 

agent services approved by the Board of 

the Underlying Fund, including a 

majority of the Independent Trustees; 

(c) provides that the Underlying Fund 

Payments may not exceed the amount of 

actual expenses incurred by the TopTier Funds; (d) provides that, in 

instances where transfer agent expenses 

are calculated based on a fixed fee per 

account, no Underlying Fund will 

reimburse transfer agent expenses of a 

Top-Tier Fund, including subaccounting expenses and other out-ofpocket expenses, at a rate in excess of 

the average per account transfer agent 

expenses of the Underlying Fund, 

including sub-accounting expenses and 

other out-of-pocket expenses, expressed 

as a basis point charge (for purposes of 

calculating the Underlying Fund’s 

average per account transfer agent 

expense, the Top-Tier Fund’s 

investment in the Underlying Fund will 

be excluded); and (e) has been approved 

by the Fund’s Board, including a 

majority of the Independent Trustees, as 

being in the best interests of the Fund 

and its shareholders and not involving 

overreaching on the part of any person 

concerned. 

2. In approving a Special Servicing 

Agreement, the Board of an Underlying 

Fund will consider, without limitation: 

(a) The reasons for the Underlying 

Fund’s entering into the Special 

Servicing Agreement; (b) information 

quantifying the Underlying Fund 

Benefits; (c) the extent to which 

investors in the Top-Tier Fund could 

have purchased shares of the 

Underlying Fund; (d) the extent to 

which an investment in the Top-Tier 

Fund represents or would represent a 

consolidation of accounts in the 

Underlying Funds, through exchanges 

or otherwise, or a reduction in the rate 

of increase in the number of accounts in 

the Underlying Funds; (e) the extent to 

which the expense ratio of the 

Underlying Fund was reduced following 

investment in the Underlying Fund by 

the Top-Tier Fund and the reasonably 

foreseeable effects of the investment by 

the Top-Tier Fund on the Underlying 

Fund’s expense ratio; (f) the reasonably 

foreseeable effects of participation in the 

Special Servicing Agreement on the 

Underlying Fund’s expense ratio; and 

(g) any conflicts of interest that Forward 

Management, any affiliated person of 

Forward Management, or any other 

affiliated person of the Underlying Fund 

may have relating to the Underlying 

Fund’s participation in the Special 

Servicing Agreement. 

3. Prior to approving a Special 

Servicing Agreement on behalf of an 

Underlying Fund, the Board of the 

Underlying Fund, including a majority 

of the Independent Trustees, will 

determine that: (a) The Underlying 

Fund Payments under the Special 

Servicing Agreement are expenses that 

the Underlying Fund would have 

incurred if the shareholders of the TopTier Fund had instead purchased shares 

of the Underlying Fund through the 

same broker-dealer or other financial 

intermediary; (b) the amount of the 

Underlying Fund Payments is less than 

the amount of Underlying Fund 

Benefits; and (c) by entering into the 

Special Servicing Agreement, the 

Underlying Fund is not engaging, 

directly or indirectly, in financing any 

activity which is primarily intended to 

result in the sale of shares issued by the 

Underlying Fund. 

4. In approving a Special Servicing 

Agreement, the Board of a Fund will 

request and evaluate, and Forward 

Management will furnish, such 

information as may reasonably be 

necessary to evaluate the terms of the 

Special Servicing Agreement and the 

factors set forth in condition 2 above, 

and make the determinations set forth in 

conditions 1 and 3 above. 

5. Approval by the Fund’s Board, 

including a majority of the Independent 

Trustees, in accordance with conditions 

1 through 4 above, will be required at 

least annually after the Fund’s entering 

into a Special Servicing Agreement and 

prior to any material amendment to a 

Special Servicing Agreement. 

6. To the extent Underlying Fund 

Payments are treated, in whole or in 

part, as a class expense of an Underlying 

Fund, or are used to pay a class-based 

expense of a Top-Tier Fund, conditions 

1 through 5 above must be met with 

respect to each class of a Fund as well 

as the Fund as a whole. 

7. Each Fund will maintain and 

preserve the Board’s findings and 

determinations set forth in conditions 1 

and 3 above, and the information and 

considerations on which they were 

based, for the duration of the Special 

Servicing Agreement, and for a period 

not less than six years thereafter, the 

first two years in an easily accessible 

place. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, pursuant to 

delegated authority. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–4875 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59486; File No. SR–NYSE– 

2009–16] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New 

York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 

NYSE Rule 17 To Address Issues 

Related to Vendor Liability and To 

Make Amendments and Conforming 

Changes to NYSE Rule 18 

March 2, 2009. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on February 

17, 2009, New York Stock Exchange 

LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘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 prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. The Exchange filed the 

proposed rule change pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A) 4 of the Act and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,5 which renders 

the proposal effective upon filing with 

the Commission. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10105 

6See E-mail from Jennifer D. Kim, Counsel, Office 

of the General Counsel, Exchange, to Michou H.M. 

Nguyen, Special Counsel, Division of Trading and 

Markets, Commission, on March 2, 2009 (‘‘March 

2nd E-mail’’). 

7See SR–NYSEALTR–2009–13 (filed February 17, 

2009). 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58137 

(July 10, 2008), 73 FR 41145 (July 17, 2008) (SR– 

NYSE–2008–55). The amendments to NYSE Rule 17 

were based on American Stock Exchange (‘‘Amex’’) 

Rule 60. 

9See Securities Exchange Act No. 58850 (October 

24, 2008), 73 FR 64998 (October 31, 2008) (SR– 

NYSE–2008–107). 

10An ‘‘Exchange system failure’’ is defined by 

NYSE Rule 18 as ‘‘a malfunction of the Exchange’s 

physical equipment, devices and/or programming 

which results in an incorrect execution or an order 

or no execution of an order that was received in 

Exchange systems.’’ 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend 

NYSE Rule 17 (‘‘Use of Exchange 

Facilities’’) to address issues related to 

vendor liability. The Exchange also 

seeks to make amendments and 

conforming changes to NYSE Rule 18 

(‘‘Compensation in Relation to Exchange 

System Failure’’). The text of the 

proposed rule change is available at the 

Exchange, the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, and 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, 

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 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 proposes to amend 

NYSE Rule 17 (‘‘Use of Exchange 

Facilities’’) to address issues related to 

vendor liability. Specifically, the 

proposed rule would require that 

member organizations that have trading 

losses due to malfunctions of third-party 

systems provided by the Exchange 

submit such losses to the Exchange’s 

compensation fund prior to pursuing 

legal remedies against the vendors that 

provided these third-party systems.6

The Exchange also seeks to make 

amendments and conforming changes to 

NYSE Rule 18 (‘‘Compensation in 

Relation to Exchange System Failure’’). 

Specifically, the Exchange seeks to 

include in the definition of ‘‘Exchange 

system failure’’ the malfunction of a 

third-party system or technology 

provided by the Exchange, i.e., vendor 

and/or subcontractor systems and to 

codify a net loss requirement for 

members or member organizations that 

seek compensation for losses sustained 

from an Exchange system failure. 

The Exchange notes that parallel 

changes are proposed to be made to the 

rules of the NYSE Alternext Exchange 

(formerly the American Stock 

Exchange).7

Background 

On July 10, 2008, the Exchange 

amended NYSE Rule 17 (‘‘Rule 

Amendment’’) to provide, among other 

things, that its vendors and/or its 

subcontractors of electronic systems, 

services or facilities (‘‘third-party 

vendors’’) would not be liable for any 

loss sustained by a member or member 

organization arising from use of the 

third-party vendors.8 The amended rule 

further required members and member 

organizations to indemnify the 

Exchange and its vendors and/or 

subcontractors and set forth certain 

provisions that the Exchange could 

include in contracts connected to a 

member or member organization’s use of 

any electronic systems, services or 

facilities provided by the third-party 

vendors. 

The impetus behind this amendment 

stemmed from exchanges’ increased 

reliance on third-party vendors to 

provide additional systems or services. 

The use of third-party vendors enables 

exchanges to increase their capacity to 

deliver faster and more efficient trading 

tools to market, with the ultimate 

beneficiaries being the investing public. 

In order for the Exchange to remain 

competitive and remove impediments 

to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free 

and open market, the Exchange relies on 

third-party vendor services to play a 

significant role in timely providing 

systems and tools to Exchange members 

that assist the Exchange in achieving its 

goals and remain competitive. 

In recognition of the fact that 

Exchange-maintained systems co-exist 

with, and are often indistinguishable 

from, vendor-maintained systems that 

the Exchange provides access to as a 

conduit, the Exchange filed the Rule 

Amendment, implementing a vendor 

liability disclaimer that indemnified the 

Exchange and third-party vendors from 

any damages sustained by a member or 

member organization growing out of the 

use or enjoyment thereof by the member 

or member organization, as well as from 

any and all judgments, damages, costs, 

or losses of any kind (including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

expenses), as a result of any claim, 

action, or proceeding that arose out of 

or relates to the member or member 

organization’s use of such electronic 

system, service, or facility. 

After the immediately effectiveness 

filing, the Exchange received feedback 

on the rule from its members and 

customer constituencies. Based on that 

feedback, the Exchange recognized the 

risk presented to members and member 

organizations with regard to requiring 

members and member organizations to 

indemnify the Exchange vendors and its 

subcontractors. The Exchange therefore 

rescinded the vendor liability 

provisions of NYSE Rule 17 (in 

particular, paragraph (b) of the amended 

rule), thereby reverting the rule to its 

original content prior to the 

effectiveness of SR–NYSE–2008–55 

[sic].9

The Exchange now re-proposes to 

amend NYSE Rule 17 and 18 to create 

a proposed rule that addresses issues of 

liability for all parties concerned. 

Proposed Amendments 

Currently, NYSE Rule 17 provides 

that the Exchange shall not be liable for 

any damages sustained by a member or 

member organization growing out of the 

use or enjoyment of the facilities 

afforded by the Exchange, except as 

provided in NYSE Rule 18. Currently, 

NYSE Rule 18 affords members and 

member organizations the recourse to 

seek compensation for losses sustained 

by an Exchange system failure.10

As noted previously, the Exchange 

increasingly offers member 

organizations access to certain systems 

and technologies that are supplied by 

third-party vendors and delivered via 

Exchange systems (e.g., the Exchange 

delivers broker algorithms to brokers on 

the broker handheld device). These 

third-party products are designed to 

enhance the member organizations’ 

ability to execute trades efficiently. 

Notably, the Exchange is acting 

primarily as a facilitator between the 

vendor and the Exchange member using 

the service. Use of these vendorsupplied services is not required, and 

Exchange members can perform their 

respective jobs without using these 

third-party vendor services. If a member 

wishes to use such a service, however, 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

11Exchange services that are outsourced to thirdparty vendors but that are part of the sore 

functionality of NYSE systems are considered 

‘‘systems and facilities of the Exchange’’ even 

though they are not physically provided by the 

Exchange. By contrast, additional services provided 

to members and member organizations by a thirdparty vendor that aren ot part of the core 

functionality of the NYSE’s systems and not 

required to function as a member or member 

organization are not considered ‘‘systems and 

facilities of the Exchange.’’ As a result, any 

malfunction of those additional services would 

constitute a third-party vendor system malfunction, 

not an Exchange malfunction. 

12The third-party vendors directly provide their 

services to the member or member organization. 

Therefore, the customers are aware that they are 

using an Exchange system, which is provided 

directly by the Exchange, or a third-party vendor 

system, that also has direct contact with the 

customer. 

13Related system malfunctions that occur 

repeatedly over the course of the trading day will 

constitute one system malfunction for purposes of 

determining the aggregation of customer claims 

resulting from that system malfunction. Distinct 

and separate malfunctions that originate from 

different system failures are considered unrelated 

malfunctions and are treated as separate system 

malfunctions. 

A member organization that sustains such loss is 

required to give oral notice by the market opening 

on the next business day following the system 

failure and written notice by the end of the third 

business day following the system failure (T+3). 

14Customers may decline to take the gains for 

varied reasons. For example, if the cost to the 

customer of processing the error is greater than the 

amount of the error, the customer will likely tell the 

broker to keep the error. 

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

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

the Exchange works with the vendor 

and the member to connect the member 

and to deliver the service from the 

vendor to the user. The Exchange also 

simplifies the negotiation process, in 

that a member does not need to 

separately negotiate with the vendor to 

receive the service. Because the services 

are supplied and supported by a thirdparty vendor, however, they are not 

explicitly ‘‘systems or facilities of the 

Exchange.’’ 11

Currently, NYSE Rules 17 and 18 do 

not address the issue of a member or 

member organization that sustains a loss 

arising from the malfunction of non-core 

systems or technology supplied by 

third-party vendors for use by member 

organizations.12 In light of the increased 

availability of third-party technology to 

provide additional facilities or services 

to the Exchange, the Exchange proposes 

to amend NYSE Rules 17 and 18 to 

address third-party vendor liability, 

third-party vendor system malfunction 

and the avenue of recourse for members 

and member organizations as a result of 

this third-party vendor system 

malfunction. 

In connection with member or 

member organization use of any thirdparty vendors provided by the Exchange 

to members for the conduct of their 

business on the Exchange, the Exchange 

proposes that NYSE Rule 17 provide 

that the Exchange shall not be liable for 

any damages sustained by a member, 

allied member or member organization 

growing out of the use or enjoyment by 

such member, allied member or member 

organization of a third-party electronic 

system, service, or facility provided by 

the Exchange, except as provided in 

NYSE Rule 18. 

The Exchange further proposes that 

members or member organizations that 

sustain a loss from the use of these 

third-party vendors provided by the 

Exchange may seek compensation from 

the Exchange for their losses in the same 

way they seek compensation for an 

Exchange system failure. Specifically, 

NYSE Rule 18 would permit members 

or member organizations to file a claim 

with the Exchange for losses caused by 

the third-party vendor’s malfunction. 

In the event that claims arising out of 

the use of these third-party vendor 

systems cannot be fully satisfied 

because the aggregated claims exceed 

the funds available for such payment as 

set forth in NYSE Rule 18, the aggrieved 

member or member organization would 

not be precluded from bringing a claim 

against the third-party vendor directly 

for the balance of the loss amount. 

The Exchange also seeks to make a 

conforming amendment to NYSE Rule 

18 to include in the definition of an 

Exchange system failure ‘‘any 

malfunction of any third-party vendor 

provided by the Exchange that result in 

an incorrect execution of an order or no 

execution of an order that was received 

in Exchange systems.’’ 

Finally, the Exchange seeks to codify 

its existing policy regarding the netting 

of losses prior to submitting claims 

under NYSE Rule 18. Specifically, the 

Exchange is codifying its understanding 

that if members and member 

organizations retain profits from a 

system malfunction, then they are 

required to net these profits against their 

losses from the same malfunction before 

submitting any claims under NYSE Rule 

18.13

For example, a broker enters orders 

for Customer #1 and Customer #2. As a 

result of a system malfunction, 

Customer #1 derives a profit that would 

have occurred but for the malfunction 

and Customer #2 derives a loss. The 

broker passes along the gain to 

Customer #1, and files a claim with the 

Exchange with respect to Customer #2’s 

loss. The broker would not be required 

to net the gain against the loss. 

Brokers are required to offer profitable 

errors to their customers; in certain 

circumstances, however, customers may 

decline to take the error in which case 

the error position is retained by the 

brokers.14 If Customer #1 declines to 

accept the profit, as is the customer’s 

option, then the broker would retain the 

profit and must net is against the loss 

incurred on behalf of Customer #2. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act,15 in general, and furthers the 

objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16

in particular, in that it is 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 a national market system, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. The Exchange believes 

that the proposed rule change promotes 

just and equitable principles of trade 

and protects investors and the public 

interest because it creates a mechanism 

that adequately addresses issues of 

liability for all parties concerned. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change would 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 

The Exchange received feedback from 

its constituents raising concerns about 

the possible risk presented to members 

and member organizations with regard 

to the provisions of NYSE Rule 17 that 

require members and member 

organizations to indemnify Exchange 

vendors and the subcontractors of 

vendors. Specifically, constituents 

expressed concern that the NYSE rule 

could have an adverse effect on their 

businesses in the event of a system 

malfunction that resulted in financial 

losses, since the prior rule not only 

limited their abilities to pursue legal 

action against the vendors, but also 

required the member organizations 

themselves to indemnify vendors for 

losses. They noted in addition that, as 

filed, the prior rule did not permit 

member organizations to seek 

compensation through the NYSE’s Rule 

18 process for losses caused by vendors 

and therefore felt that the limitation on 

liability was unduly burdensome. This 

rule proposal is submitted in light of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10107 

17See March 2nd E-mail, supra note 6. 

18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

19 In addition, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires a selfregulatory organization to give the Commission 

written notice of its intent to file 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 this requirement. 17 CFR 

240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

20Amex Rule 60—AEMI (‘‘Vendor Liability 

Disclaimer’’). AEMI (‘‘Auction & Electronic Market 

Integration’’) System was Amex’s Hybrid Market 

Structure for equities and exchange-traded funds 

prior to the merger with NYSE. 

21 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

these comments received in response to 

NYSE’s filing, SR–NYSE–2008–55.17

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The proposed rule change is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.18 The Exchange 

asserts that the proposed rule change (i) 

will not significantly affect the 

protection of investors or the public 

interest, (ii) will not impose any 

significant burden on competition, and 

(iii) by its terms, will not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of 

this filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest.19

The Exchange believes that the instant 

filing is non-controversial. The 

Commission has approved a third-party 

vendor liability provision that was filed 

by the American Stock Exchange which 

required members and member 

organizations to indemnify the 

Exchange and its vendors and/or 

subcontractors and provided that such 

vendor and its subcontractors shall not 

be liable to the member or member 

organization for any damages sustained 

by a member or member organization 

from use of these third-party vendor 

systems.20 The Exchange submits that 

its proposed rule change is less 

expansive that Amex Rule 60—AEMI 

and affords a member or member 

organization the ability to recover from 

a loss sustained by use of a third-party 

vendor system. The proposed rule 

change offers its members and member 

organizations two layers of recourse in 

the event of a third-party vendor system 

malfunction, i.e., filing a claim pursuant 

to NYSE Rule 18 and then filing a claim 

directly against the third-party vendor 

for any remaining balance of the loss 

amount. Therefore, the Exchange 

submits that this proposed rule filing, in 

light of the more restrictive vendor 

liability disclaimer rules previously 

approved by the Commission, is noncontroversial. 

The Exchange proposes this rule 

amendment in light of feedback from its 

member and customer constituencies. 

Accordingly, the Exchange submits that 

this proposed amendment is noncontroversial and reflects the public 

interest. 

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 Exchange 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–NYSE–2009–16 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–NYSE–2009–16. 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–NYSE–2009–16 and should 

be submitted on or before March 30, 

2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.21

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–4874 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59491; File No. SR–NYSE– 

2009–20] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change by New York 

Stock Exchange LLC Extending a 

Temporary Equity Transaction Fee for 

Shares Executed on the NYSE 

MatchPoint SM System, Effective March 

1, 2009 Until April 30, 2009 

March 3, 2009. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on February 

26, 2009, New York Stock Exchange 

LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by the selfregulatory 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 extend a 

temporary equity transaction fee for 

shares executed on the NYSE 

MatchPointSM (‘‘NYSE MatchPoint’’ or 

‘‘MatchPoint’’) system, effective March 

1, 2009 until April 30, 2009. The 

Exchange will charge each member 

organization using the MatchPoint 

system a per share fee scaled to the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES