14604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59307 

(January 28, 2009), 74 FR 6069 (SR–BX–2009–005). 

4Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 

(December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 

2008) (SR–BSE–2008–48). 

5The Exchange previously adopted fees 

applicable solely to its members. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 59337 (February 2, 2009), 

74 FR 6441 (February 9, 2009) (SR–BX–2009–004). 

6See proposed Equity Rule 7023. 

7See proposed Equity Rule 7019. 

8 Id. 

9See proposed Equity Rule 7025. 

to them generally in connection with 

their purchase and sale of securities 

under that Rule in the ordinary course 

of their business. In particular, the 

Insurance Companies (or any of their 

affiliates) cannot effect the proposed 

transactions at a price that is 

disadvantageous to any of the 

Replacement Funds. Although the 

transactions may not be entirely for 

cash, each will be effected based upon 

(1) the independent market price of the 

portfolio securities valued as specified 

in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–7, and (2) 

the net asset value per share of each 

fund involved valued in accordance 

with the procedures disclosed in its 

respective investment company 

registration statement and as required 

by Rule 22c–1 under the Act. No 

brokerage commission, fee, or other 

remuneration will be paid to any party 

in connection with the proposed in kind 

purchase transactions. 

28. The sale of shares of Replacement 

Funds for investment securities, as 

contemplated by the proposed 

Insurance Company in-kind purchases, 

is consistent with the investment 

policies and restrictions of the 

Investment Companies and the 

Replacement Funds because (a) the 

shares are sold at their net asset value, 

and (b) the portfolio securities are of the 

type and quality that the Replacement 

Funds would each have acquired with 

the proceeds from share sales had the 

shares been sold for cash. To assure that 

the second of these conditions is met, 

Met Investors Advisory, LLC, MetLife 

Advisers, LLC and the sub-adviser, as 

applicable, will examine the portfolio 

securities being offered to each 

Replacement Fund and accept only 

those securities as consideration for 

shares that it would have acquired for 

each such fund in a cash transaction. 

29. The Section 17 Applicants submit 

that the proposed Insurance Company 

in-kind purchases are consistent with 

the general purposes of the Act as stated 

in the Findings and Declaration of 

Policy in Section 1 of the Act and that 

the proposed transactions do not 

present any of the conditions or abuses 

that the Act was designed to prevent. 

30. The Section 17 Applicants 

represent that the proposed in-kind 

purchases meet all of the requirements 

of Section 17(b) of the Act and request 

that the Commission issue an order 

pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Act 

exempting the Separate Accounts, the 

Insurance Companies, MIST, Met Series 

Fund and each Replacement Fund from 

the provisions of Section 17(a) of the 

Act to the extent necessary to permit the 

Insurance Companies on behalf of the 

Separate Accounts to carry out, as part 

of the substitutions, the in-kind 

purchase of shares of the Replacement 

Funds which may be deemed to be 

prohibited by Section 17(a) of the Act. 

Conclusion 

Applicants assert that for the reasons 

summarized above that the proposed 

substitutions and related transactions 

meet the standards of Section 26(c) of 

the Act and are consistent with the 

standards of Section 17(b) of the Act 

and that the requested orders should be 

granted. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management pursuant to 

delegated authority. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7086 Filed 3–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59615; File No. SR–BX– 

2009–005] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Order 

Approving Proposed Rule Change To 

Establish New Fees for Services 

Available to Members and NonMembers 

March 20, 2009. 

I. Introduction 

On January 14, 2009, NASDAQ OMX 

BX, Inc. (‘‘BX’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘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 to adopt fees applicable to 

members and non-members in 

connection with its cash equities trading 

business. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on February 4, 2009.3 The 

Commission did not receive any 

comment letters on the proposal. This 

order approves the proposed rule 

change. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

Pursuant to SR–BSE–2008–48, the 

Exchange adopted a new rulebook with 

rules governing membership, the 

regulatory obligations of members, 

listing, and equities trading.4 The new 

rules, which are designated as the 

‘‘Equity Rules,’’ are substantially based 

on the rules of The NASDAQ Stock 

Market LLC (the ‘‘NASDAQ Exchange’’). 

Through this proposal, the Exchange 

seeks to establish non-member and 

member fees for its cash equities trading 

business.5 The Exchange states that the 

proposed fee schedule is similar to the 

NASDAQ Exchange but differs in that it 

omits several fees that are not pertinent 

to the Exchange’s business and differs in 

the level of certain fees. 

A. Market Data 

The Exchange proposes to establish 

fees for its BX TotalView data product. 

Like NASDAQ TotalView, BX 

TotalView will provide all displayed 

quotes and orders in the market, with 

attribution to the relevant market 

participant, at every price level, as well 

as total displayed anonymous interest at 

every price level. In recognition of the 

start-up nature of the new market, the 

data feed will be provided free of charge 

to subscribers and distributors for the 

first year of operation. 

After the initial free period, 

subscribers to BX TotalView will pay a 

monthly charge of $20; however, new 

subscribers receiving BX TotalView for 

the first time after the expiration of the 

one-year introductory period will be 

able to use the product free of charge for 

an individual 30-day trial period.6

Distributors of BX TotalView will pay a 

$1,000 monthly fee to receive the data 

directly from the Exchange, since the 

Exchange incurs costs to support the 

connection to each direct distributor; 

indirect distributors (i.e., those 

receiving data from a direct distributor) 

would not pay this charge.7 Distributors 

will also pay a $500 monthly fee to 

distribute the data feed internally (i.e., 

to employees) and a $1,250 monthly fee 

to distribute to external customers.8

All of the foregoing fees will be 

waived during the initial free period. 

Upon approval of this filing, however, 

the Exchange will begin to assess a 

limited number of fees in connection 

with data provision. Specifically, 

extranet providers that connect to the 

Exchange to provide direct access 

connectivity to market data will be 

charged a monthly access fee of $750 for 

each technical configuration used to 

provide a connection to a recipient’s 

site.9 In addition, data distributors will 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 14605 

10See proposed Equity Rule 7035. These annual 

administrative fees can be waived for colleges and 

universities receiving the data for research and 

educational purposes. 

11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59337 

(February 2, 2009), 74 FR 6441 (February 9, 2009) 

(SR–BX–2009–004) (establishing Equity Rule 7015 

to charge fees for ports used by members to enter 

orders). 

12Equity Rule 7015. 

13See proposed Equity Rule 7030(d). 

14See proposed Equity Rule 7030(b). This 

provision allows the Exchange to recoup costs 

associated with responding to ad hoc requests for 

market data, such as requests that may be made by 

news reporters or academic researchers. 15See proposed Equity Rule 7031. This provision 

provides that market data distributors may elect to 

be billed on a prorated basis during the month of 

initiation or termination of service. 

16 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission has considered the proposed rule’s 

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 

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

17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

20 17 CFR 242.603(a). 

21BX is an exclusive processor of BX depth-ofbook data under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 

Continued 

pay an annual administrative fee of 

$500 for delayed distribution of data, 

and $1,000 for real-time distribution.10

The Exchange is establishing the 

foregoing fee structure to be similar to 

the structure for NASDAQ TotalView, 

but at lower overall levels than fees for 

NASDAQ TotalView. The Exchange 

states that the lower fee levels reflect the 

start-up nature of the Exchange’s new 

equities trading platform, and will help 

to promote competition among 

exchanges with respect to the quoting 

and trading services. Specifically, the 

Exchange believes that the fees it sets 

for BX TotalView will help to attract 

order flow to the Exchange. At 

inception, the Exchange will have zero 

market share. The Exchange believes 

that it must set its fees, including data 

fees, with a view to attracting order flow 

to increase market share. The Exchange 

states that due to the existence of 

alternatives for market participants to 

determine market depth—such as other 

depth of book products that may be 

associated with markets with more 

liquidity, or order routing strategies 

designed to ascertain market depth—the 

Exchange has incentives to ensure that 

its fees for BX TotalView are set 

reasonably. 

The Exchange believes that proposed 

fee structure for BX TotalView is not 

unreasonably discriminatory, since the 

fees for subscribers are uniform for all 

subscribers, and the fees for distributors 

are uniform except with respect to 

reasonable distinctions between internal 

and external distribution and direct and 

indirect receipt of data. The Exchange 

also believes that the fees are fair and 

reasonable in that they compare 

favorably to fees charged by other 

exchanges for comparable products. 

B. Port Fees 

In order to receive BX TotalView, 

subscribers must establish connectivity 

to the Exchange through extranets, 

direct connection, and Internet-based 

virtual private networks. The Exchange 

proposes to charge fees for the ports 

required to establish these connections, 

just as it will charge for access ports 

used to enter orders into the market.11

A port used for order entry cannot also 

be used to receive data; thus, a member 

seeking to enter orders and receive data 

would require at least two port pairs. 

Prior to approval of this filing, the 

Exchange will provide data ports free of 

charge. Thereafter, the Exchange will 

generally charge the same fees for data 

ports that it charges for order entry 

ports: $400 per month per port pair, 

plus an additional $200 per month for 

each Internet port that requires 

additional bandwidth due to the 

demands of the particular subscriber. In 

addition, subscribers wishing to obtain 

data will also have the option of 

obtaining a Multicast ITCH® port pair at 

a fee of $1000 per month.12 The 

differences between these two options 

relate to speed and processes for 

verifying completeness of the data. The 

standard port pair option provides one 

copy of the data and uses procedures 

under which the system receiving the 

data communicates back to the 

Exchange to verify completeness of the 

information. Under the Multicast ITCH 

option, two copies of the data are 

provided without these verification 

processes, and consequently at a higher 

rate of speed. Because the recipient of 

the data receives two copies, it can, if 

it wishes, undertake its own verification 

by programming its systems to compare 

the two copies. The fees for data ports 

are identical to the comparable fees 

charged by the NASDAQ Exchange. 

C. Testing 

The Exchange proposes to establish 

fees for its testing facility, to be set at 

levels identical to the fees for the 

NASDAQ Exchange’s testing facility.13

In general, the Exchange will charge 

$285 per hour for an active connection 

during the facility’s normal operating 

hours and $333 per hour for an active 

connection at other times. Because the 

fees are waived for testing of new, 

enhanced, or modified services and/or 

software offered by the Exchange, as 

well as for modifications initiated by the 

Exchange and for a 30-day period for 

new subscribers to existing services, the 

testing fees will not be charged until the 

later of (i) approval of this filing, or (ii) 

30 days after the launch of the NASDAQ 

OMX BX Equities System. Thereafter, as 

provided in the rule, the fees will be 

waived for a 30-day period for each new 

market participant. 

D. Other Fees 

Other fee rules relate to special data 

requests 14 and partial month charges 15

and are comparable to corresponding 

NASDAQ Exchange rules. 

III. Discussion 

The Commission has reviewed 

carefully the proposed rule change and 

finds that the proposed rule change is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to a national 

securities exchange.16 In particular, it is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the 

Act,17 which requires that the rules of 

a national securities exchange provide 

for the equitable allocation of reasonable 

dues, fees, and other charges among its 

members and issuers and other parties 

using its facilities, and Section 6(b)(5) of 

the Act,18 which requires, among other 

things, that the rules of a national 

securities exchange be designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest, and 

not be designed to permit unfair 

discrimination between customers, 

issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Commission also finds that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the 

Act,19 which requires that the rules of 

an exchange not impose any burden on 

competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. Finally, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Rule 

603(a) of Regulation NMS,20 adopted 

under Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, 

which requires an exclusive processor 

that distributes information with respect 

to quotations for or transactions in an 

NMS stock to do so on terms that are 

fair and reasonable and that are not 

unreasonably discriminatory.21


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
14606 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 

U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which defines an exclusive 

processor as, among other things, an exchange that 

distributes information with respect to quotations 

or transactions on an exclusive basis on its own 

behalf. 

22Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 

(December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 

2008) (SR–NYSEArca-2006–21) (‘‘NYSE Arca 

Order’’). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission 

describes in great detail the competitive factors that 

apply to non-core market data products. The 

Commission hereby incorporates by reference the 

data and analysis from the NYSE Arca Order into 

this order. 

23 Id. at 74771. 

24 Id. at 74782. 

25 Id. at 74781. 

26See 17 CFR 242.603(b). (‘‘Every national 

securities exchange on which an NMS stock is 

traded and national securities association shall act 

jointly pursuant to one or more effective national 

market system plans to disseminate consolidated 

information, including a national best bid and 

national best offer, on quotations for and 

transactions in NMS stocks. Such plan or plans 

shall provide for the dissemination of all 

consolidated information for an individual NMS 

stock through a single plan processor.’’). 

27See NYSE Arca Order at 74779. 

28 Id. 

29 Id. 

30Source: ArcaVision (available at http:// 

www.arcavision.com). 

A. BX Market Data & Port Fees 

The Commission has reviewed the 

proposal using the approach set forth in 

the NYSE Arca Order for non-core 

market data fees.22 In the NYSE Arca 

Order, the Commission stated that 

‘‘when possible, reliance on competitive 

forces is the most appropriate and 

effective means to assess whether the 

terms for the distribution of non-core 

data are equitable, fair and reasonable, 

and not unreasonably 

discriminatory.’’ 23 It noted that the 

‘‘existence of significant competition 

provides a substantial basis for finding 

that the terms of an exchange’s fee 

proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, 

and not unreasonably or unfairly 

discriminatory.’’ 24 If an exchange ‘‘was 

subject to significant competitive forces 

in setting the terms of a proposal,’’ the 

Commission will approve a proposal 

unless it determines that ‘‘there is a 

substantial countervailing basis to find 

that the terms nevertheless fail to meet 

an applicable requirement of the 

Exchange Act or the rules 

thereunder.’’ 25

As noted in the NYSE Arca Order, the 

standards in Section 6 of the Act and 

Rule 603 of Regulation NMS do not 

differentiate between types of data and 

therefore apply to exchange proposals to 

distribute both core data and non-core 

data. Core data is the best-priced 

quotations and comprehensive last-sale 

reports of all markets that the 

Commission, pursuant to Rule 603(b), 

requires a central processor to 

consolidate and distribute to the public 

pursuant to joint-SRO plans.26 In 

contrast, individual exchanges and 

other market participants distribute 

non-core data voluntarily.27 The 

mandatory nature of the core data 

disclosure regime leaves little room for 

competitive forces to determine 

products and fees.28 Non-core data 

products and their fees are, by contrast, 

much more sensitive to competitive 

forces. The Commission therefore is able 

to use competitive forces in its 

determination of whether an exchange’s 

proposal to distribute non-core data 

meets the standards of Section 6 and 

Rule 603.29 Because BX’s instant 

proposal relates to the distribution of 

non-core data, the Commission will 

apply the market-based approach set 

forth in the NYSE Arca Order. 

The proposal before the Commission, 

in part, relates to fees for BX TotalView 

which are non-core, depth of book 

market data products, and as in the 

Commission’s NYSE Arca Order 

analysis at least two broad types of 

significant competitive forces applied to 

BX in setting the terms of this proposal: 

(i) BX’s compelling need to attract order 

flow from market participants; and (ii) 

the availability to market participants of 

alternatives to purchasing BX’s depthof-book order data. 

Attracting order flow is the core 

competitive concern of any equity 

exchange, including BX. Attracting 

order flow is an essential part of a 

national securities exchange’s 

competitive success. If a national 

securities exchange cannot attract order 

flow to its market, it will not be able to 

execute transactions. If a national 

securities exchange cannot execute 

transactions on its market, it will not 

generate transaction revenue. If a 

national securities exchange cannot 

attract orders or execute transactions on 

its market, it will not have market data 

to distribute, for a fee or otherwise, and 

will not earn market data revenue and 

thus not be competitive with other 

exchanges that have this ability. Table 1 

below provides a useful recent snapshot 

of the state of competition in the U.S. 

equity markets in the month of January 

2009: 30

TABLE 1—REPORTED SHARE VOLUME IN U.S.-LISTED EQUITIES DURING JANUARY 2009 

[%] 

Trading venue All stocks NYSE-Listed NASDAQ-Listed 

NASDAQ ...................................................................................................................................... 27.1 20.5 39.9 

All Non-Exchange ........................................................................................................................ 26.7 26.2 31.0 

NYSE Arca ................................................................................................................................... 17.9 15.7 15.8 

NYSE ........................................................................................................................................... 14.8 26.2 0.0 

BATS ............................................................................................................................................ 10.7 9.0 10.8 

International Stock Exchange ...................................................................................................... 1.3 1.4 1.4 

National Stock Exchange ............................................................................................................ 0.6 0.7 0.7 

Chicago Stock Exchange ............................................................................................................ 0.4 0.4 0.3 

CBOE Stock Exchange ............................................................................................................... 0.2 0.0 0.1 

NYSE Alternext ............................................................................................................................ 0.1 0.0 0.0 

NASDAQ OMX BX ...................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 

The market share percentages in Table 

1 strongly indicate that BX must 

compete vigorously for order flow to 

maintain its share of trading volume. 

This compelling need to attract order 

flow imposes significant pressure on BX 

to act reasonably in setting its fees for 

BX market data, particularly given that 

the market participants that must pay 

such fees often will be the same market 

participants from whom BX must attract 

order flow. These market participants 

particularly include the large brokerdealer firms that control the handling of 

a large volume of customer and 

proprietary order flow. Given the 

portability of order flow from one 

trading venue to another, any exchange 

that sought to charge unreasonably high 

data fees would risk alienating many of 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 31, 2009 / Notices 14607 

31See NYSE Arca Order at 74783. 

32See Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 

§ 9.1 (5th ed. 1998) (discussing the theory of 

monopolies and pricing). See also U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice & Fed’l Trade Comm’n, Horizontal Merger 

Guidelines § 1.11 (1992), as revised (1997) 

(explaining the importance of alternatives to the 

presence of competition and the definition of 

markets and market power). Courts frequently refer 

to the Department of Justice and Federal Trade 

Commission merger guidelines to define product 

markets and evaluate market power. See, e.g., FTC 

v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1 

(D.D.C. 2007); FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 

2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004). In considering antitrust 

issues, courts have recognized the value of 

competition in producing lower prices. See, e.g., 

Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 

S. Ct. 2705 (2007); Atlanta Richfield Co. v. United 

States Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990); 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 

475 U.S. 574 (1986); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 

3 (1997); Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. U.S., 356 

U.S. 1 (1958). 

33See NYSE Arca Order at 74783. 

34 Id. 

35 Id. 

36See NYSE Arca Order at 74784. 

37 Id. 

38See proposed Equity Rule 7030(d). 

39See proposed Equity Rule 7030(b). 

40See proposed Equity Rule 7031. 

41 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

42 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

the same customers on whose orders it 

depends for competitive survival.31

In addition to the need to attract order 

flow, the availability of alternatives to 

BX’s TotalView data significantly affect 

the terms on which BX can distribute 

this market data.32 In setting the fees for 

its BX TotalView data, BX must 

consider the extent to which market 

participants would choose one or more 

alternatives instead of purchasing the 

exchange’s data.33 Of course, the most 

basic source of information generally 

available at an exchange is the complete 

record of an exchange’s transactions that 

is provided in the core data feeds.34 In 

this respect, the core data feeds that 

include an exchange’s own transaction 

information are a significant alternative 

to the exchange’s market data product.35

For more specific information 

concerning depth, market participants 

can choose among products offered by 

the various exchanges and ECNs.36 The 

various self-regulatory organizations, 

the several Trade Reporting Facilities of 

FINRA, and ECNs that produce 

proprietary data are all sources of 

competition. In addition, market 

participants can assess depth with tools 

other than market data, such as 

‘‘pinging’’ orders that search out both 

displayed and nondisplayed size at all 

price points within an order’s limit 

price.37

In sum, there are a variety of 

alternative sources of information that 

impose significant competitive 

pressures on the BX in setting the terms 

for distributing its depth-of-book order 

data. The Commission believes that the 

availability of those alternatives, as well 

as the BX’s compelling need to attract 

order flow, imposed significant 

competitive pressure on the BX to act 

equitably, fairly, and reasonably in 

setting the terms of its proposal. 

Because the BX was subject to 

significant competitive forces in setting 

the terms of the proposal, the 

Commission will approve the proposal 

in the absence of a substantial 

countervailing basis to find that its 

terms nevertheless fail to meet an 

applicable requirement of the Act or the 

rules thereunder. An analysis of the 

proposal does not provide such a basis. 

Further, the Commission did not receive 

any comment letters raising concerns of 

a substantial countervailing basis that 

the terms of the proposal failed to meet 

the requirements of the Act or the rules 

thereunder. 

The Commission notes that BX is 

effectively entering the competitive 

markets for equities trading as a start-up 

venture. If its fees are not set at a level 

that will promote competition in these 

markets, potential users will simply 

continue to obtain services from the 

Exchange’s multiple competitors. 

Accordingly, the Exchange must set fees 

for market data and transaction 

executions that promote the Exchange 

as a trading venue. If its fees are set at 

inappropriately high levels, market 

participants will seek to avoid using the 

Exchange, and the Exchange’ market 

data will have little value to market 

participants. Thus, consistent with the 

analysis set forth in the NYSE Arca 

Order, the Exchange’s operations, 

products and services must be designed 

to promote competition in order to 

succeed and provide market 

participants with viable and costeffective alternatives to existing 

competitors. 

B. Testing and Other Fees 

The Exchange proposes to establish 

new fees for its testing facility at the 

rates of $285 per hour for an active 

connection during the facility’s normal 

operating hours and $333 per hour for 

an active connection at other times. 

Under the proposal, the Exchange will 

waive fees for testing of new, enhanced, 

or modified services and/or software 

offered by the Exchange, as well as for 

modifications initiated by the Exchange 

and for a 30-day period for new 

subscribers to existing services, the 

testing fees will not be charged until the 

later of (i) approval of this filing, or (ii) 

30 days after the launch of the NASDAQ 

OMX BX Equities System. Thereafter, 

fees will be waived for a 30-day period 

for each new market participant. The 

Commission notes that the Exchanges’s 

new fees for its testing facility are at 

levels identical to the fees for the 

NASDAQ Exchange’s testing facility.38

In addition, the Exchange proposes 

new fee rules related to special data 

requests to allow the Exchange to 

recoup costs associated with responding 

to ad hoc requests for market data, such 

as requests that may be made by news 

reporters or academic researchers.39 The 

Exchange also proposes fees for partial 

month charges to enable market data 

distributors to elect to be billed on a 

prorated basis during the month of 

initiation or termination of service.40

The Commission notes that these new 

fees for special data requests and partial 

month charges are similar to 

corresponding NASDAQ Exchange 

rules. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,41 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–BX–2009– 

005) be, and hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.42

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–7085 Filed 3–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 6562] 

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: DS–0174, Application for 

Employment as a Locally Employed 

Staff or Family Member, OMB Control 

Number 1405–XXXX 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State is 

seeking Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for the 

information collection described below. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 

days for public comment in the Federal 

Register preceding submission to OMB. 

We are conducting this process in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

• Title of Information Collection: 

Department of State Application for 

Employment as a Locally Employed 

Staff or Family Member. 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–XXXX. 

• Type of Request: New collection. 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES