Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 25779 

4See letter from Douglas Adamson, Executive 

Vice President, Technical Services Division, 

American Bankers Association (‘‘ABA’’), dated 

April 24, 2009. 

5See letters from Ernesto A. Lanza, General 

Counsel, MSRB, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

SEC, dated May 8, 2009 (‘‘Response Letter I’’) and 

May 18, 2009 (‘‘Response Letter II’’). 

6The Commission has previously approved the 

establishment of the continuing disclosure service 

of EMMA, which will commence operation on July 

1, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

59061 (December 5, 2008), 73 FR 75778 (December 

12, 2008) (File No. SR–MSRB–2008–05) (approving 

the continuing disclosure service of EMMA with an 

effective date of July 1, 2009). The EMMA 

continuing disclosure service is designed to 

commence operation simultaneously with the 

effectiveness of certain amendments to Exchange 

Act Rule 15c2–12 adopted by the Commission. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59062 

(December 5, 2008), 73 FR 76104 (December 15, 

2008) (adopting amendments to Exchange Act Rule 

15c2–12). 

7See Response Letter II, supra note 5. 

8See supra note 4. 

9See letter from the ABA, supra note 4. 

10See Response Letter II, supra note 5. The MSRB 

stated that this agreement would expand and 

reposition existing language on the EMMA Web site 

to ensure that users of the EMMA Web site have a 

fuller understanding of the sources of information 

displayed on the EMMA Web site and of the 

proprietary rights of third parties (including but not 

limited to the proprietary rights of the ABA in the 

Database) in certain displayed data elements. Such 

language would advise users of the limitations on 

their use or re-use of any proprietary information 

accessed on the EMMA Web site, and users would 

be required to acknowledge such limitations before 

being provided access to any portion of the 

Database. Additional systemic and reporting 

mechanisms would be implemented to further 

protect against inappropriate use of the Database. 

See Response Letter I, supra note 5. 

11 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission notes that it has considered the 

proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition 

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 

13 Id. 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

letter about the proposed rule change.4

On May 8, 2009 and May 18, 2009, the 

MSRB filed responses to the comment 

letters.5 This order approves the 

proposed rule change. 

The proposed rule change would 

establish the continuing disclosure pilot 

of the continuing disclosure service of 

the MSRB’s EMMA system. The 

continuing disclosure pilot would 

receive electronic submissions of, and 

would make publicly available on the 

Internet, continuing disclosure 

documents and related information 

voluntarily submitted by issuers, 

obligated persons and their agents. The 

MSRB originally requested approval of 

the continuing disclosure pilot to 

commence operation on May 11, 2009, 

or such later date as may be announced 

by the MSRB in a notice published on 

the MSRB Web site, which date shall be 

no later than 30 days after Commission 

approval of the proposed rule change. In 

addition, the MSRB requested approval 

of the continuing disclosure pilot for a 

period ending on July 1, 2009.6 The 

MSRB has now requested approval of 

this proposed rule change by no later 

than May 22, 2009, so that the MSRB 

may commence operation of the pilot 

continuing disclosure service on June 1, 

2009.7 A full description of the proposal 

is contained in the Commission’s 

Notice. 

As previously noted, the Commission 

received one comment letter relating to 

the proposed rule change.8 The ABA 

expressed concerns regarding certain 

legal issues relating to the protection of 

its intellectual property and contractual 

rights in the CUSIP database (the 

‘‘Database’’) that it states have not yet 

been resolved. The ABA noted that it 

was the owner of the Database, which is 

administered by the CUSIP Service 

Bureau (‘‘CSB’’), as its exclusive 

licensee, and believed it was critical 

that these legal issues be resolved before 

the MSRB be allowed to move forward 

with the proposed expansion and full 

implementation of EMMA. It further 

requested that the operation of the 

EMMA Web site incorporate a variety of 

protections with respect to its 

intellectual property rights, including 

compliance with CSB’s current 

licensing practices, permissible use 

guidelines, appropriate copyright 

notices and adequate security.9

In response to the ABA’s concerns, 

the MSRB and the CSB, as the ABA’s 

exclusive licensee, have entered into a 

memorandum of understanding dated 

May 15, 2009 (the ‘‘MOU’’) in which 

CSB expressly permits use of the CUSIP 

database for purposes, among other 

things, of displaying information on the 

MSRB’s EMMA public Web portal and 

for inclusion in data disseminated by 

the MSRB to subscribers of the EMMA 

data feed. The MSRB has agreed in the 

MOU to provide certain safeguards with 

respect to the ABA’s intellectual 

property and contractual rights of the 

ABA in the CUSIP database.10 The 

Commission believes that the MSRB has 

taken sufficient action to ensure that all 

necessary arrangements will be in place 

in order to operate the continuing 

disclosure pilot as anticipated by the 

implementation date. 

The Commission has carefully 

considered the proposed rule change, 

the comment letter received, and the 

MSRB’s responses to the comment letter 

and finds that the proposed rule change 

is consistent with the requirements of 

the Act and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to the MSRB11

and, in particular, the requirements of 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 12 and 

the rules and regulations thereunder. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, 

among other things, that the MSRB’s 

rules be designed to prevent fraudulent 

and manipulative acts and practices, to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, to foster cooperation and 

coordination with persons engaged in 

regulating, clearing, settling, processing 

information with respect to, and 

facilitating transactions in municipal 

securities, to remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market in municipal securities, 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest.13 In particular, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the Act 

because the EMMA continuing 

disclosure service, including the pilot 

phase thereof, would serve as an 

additional mechanism by which the 

MSRB works toward removing 

impediments to and helping to perfect 

the mechanisms of a free and open 

market in municipal securities. The 

pilot phase would be an important 

transitional step toward ensuring the 

effective and efficient operation of the 

permanent EMMA continuing 

disclosure service upon launch on July 

1, 2009. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,14 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–MSRB–2009– 

03), be, and it hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12441 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59939; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex–2009–17] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex LLC; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 

Thereto Revising Rules Governing the 

Use of Telephones on the Options 

Trading Floor 

May 19, 2009. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that, on May 4, 

2009, NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE Amex’’ 

or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

25780 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

5Amendment No. 1 amended the Exchange’s 

proposed revision of Part 1C(i)(12) of the 

Supplementary Material to Rule 476A (Imposition 

of Fines for Minor Violations of Rules) to more 

accurately cite Exchange Rule 902NY(i)(1). 

Amendment No. 1 further amended the description 

of the violation in Part 1C(i)(12) to more closely 

reflect Rule 902NY(i)(1), which prohibits an 

employee of an ATP Holder, as well as an ATP 

Holder, to employ any alternative communication 

device on the Trading Floor without prior approval 

of the Exchange. In addition, Amendment No. l 

made corresponding changes to the Minor Rule 

Plan Recommended Fine Schedule also contained 

in Rule 476A. 

6NYSE Amex LLC recently relocated its Options 

Trading Floor to 11 Wall Street, New York, New 

York, effective with the approval of SR– 

NYSEALTR–2008–14. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 59472 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR 9843 

(March 6, 2009) (notice of filing of Amendment No. 

1 and order granting accelerated approval of the 

SR–NYSEALTR–2008–14 as modified by 

Amendment No. 1). 

7Certain concepts in NYSE Arca Rule 6.2(h) have 

no natural corollary within NYSE Amex rules, 

including, for example, the terms OTP Firm and 

trading posts. In the alternative, NYSE Amex rules 

refer to employees of ATP Holders or Trading 

Zones, respectively—and such concepts will be so 

reflected throughout the proposed rule. Further, 

concepts such as Floor Managers or General Access 

Phones are not applicable to NYSE Amex and 

therefore are not included in the proposed NYSE 

Amex rule. 

8The Exchange is not proposing to require ATP 

Holders to register by category of user. Such a 

requirement is inapplicable since (i) the proposed 

rule applies to ATP Holders and all employees of 

ATP Holders, regardless of category and (ii) such a 

requirement was a historical response to capacity 

limitations (which no longer apply) thereby 

allowing the Exchange to restrict use by certain 

categories of users if capacity issues arose. 

9Certain capacity restrictions set forth in NYSE 

Arca Rule 6.2(h)(2) are no longer relevant and will 

not be included in the NYSE Amex proposed rule. 

10By applying the proposed rule to ATP Holders 

and employees of ATP Holders, the Exchange is 

using a term designed to encompass the same scope 

of individuals as the equivalent NYSE Arca rule. In 

doing so, NYSE Amex eliminates the need to 

specifically reference, as NYSE Arca Rule 6.2(h) 

does, each type of covered employee, such as Floor 

Broker, Market Maker, or Clerk. As a result, NYSE 

Amex (i) collapsed the substantive provisions of 

NYSE Arca Rule 6.2(h)(4)–(5) into proposed Rule 

902NY(i)(4) and (ii) has not carried over the specific 

references to Floor Broker Clerks, Stock Execution 

Clerks and Market Maker Clerks set forth in the 

NYSE Arca Rule. Finally, NYSE Arca Rule 

6.2(h)(5)(D), regarding Lead Market Makers, is 

entirely inapplicable and therefore not copied into 

the proposed rule. 

11This proposed rule is modeled on NYSE Arca 

Rule 6.2(h)(9). 

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 Exchange. The 

Exchange filed the proposed rule change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,4

which renders it effective upon filing 

with the Commission. The Exchange 

filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed 

rule change on May 18, 2009.5 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 (i) 

eliminate old rules governing 

telephones and hand held devices, (ii) 

introduce new rules governing the use 

of telephones on the Trading Floor, and 

(iii) clarify recently adopted language 

regarding the removal of hand held 

devices from the Trading Floor. The text 

of the proposed rule change is attached 

as Exhibit 5 to the 19b–4 form. A copy 

of this filing is available on the 

Exchange’s Web site at http:// 

www.nyse.com, at the Exchange’s 

principal office 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 

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 parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this filing is to (i) 

eliminate old rules governing 

telephones, hand held devices, and 

Floor Wires, (ii) introduce new rules 

governing the use of telephones on the 

Trading Floor 6 and (iii) clarify recently 

adopted language regarding the removal 

of hand held devices from the Trading 

Floor. 

The Exchange proposes to delete, 

from PART II—Rules Principally 

Applicable to Floor Transactions, 

Section 6—Floor Wires in its entirety. 

This section is obsolete given changes in 

telecommunications devices, changes in 

market structure, enhanced 

requirements for the systematization of 

orders, and maintenance of electronic 

records. 

In its place, the Exchange proposes 

new Rule 902NY(i), Telephones on the 

Trading Floor. The new Rule is modeled 

on NYSE Arca Rule 6.2(h), although it 

does not include certain outdated or 

inapplicable concepts of the NYSE Arca 

Rule.7

The proposed rule requires all ATP 

Holders to register with the Exchange, 

prior to use, any telephone to be used 

on the Trading Floor.8 At the time of 

registration, ATP Holder representatives 

must agree that they are aware of and 

understand the rules governing 

telephones on the Trading Floor. 

In addition, the Exchange notes that 

separate from the registration and use of 

telephones, the Exchange shall retain 

the authority to review and approve, 

prior to their use, any alternative 

communication device (including but 

not limited to devices offering 

capabilities such as e-mail, instant 

messaging, texting, or Internetsupported communications). Also, 

according to proposed Rule 902NY(i)(1): 

no ATP Holder or employee of an ATP 

Holder, may employ any alternative 

communication device (other than 

telephones as described herein) on the 

Trading Floor without prior approval of 

the Exchange. 

The proposed rule specifically 

prohibits the use of any device to 

maintain an open line of continuous 

communication that would allow a 

person off the Trading Floor to 

continuously monitor the activities in 

the Trading Crowd. This prohibition 

covers intercoms, walkie-talkies and any 

similar devices.9

The proposed rule governs all ATP 

Holders and employees of ATP Holders 

while on the Floor.10 As with NYSE 

Arca Rule 6.2(h)(3), this proposed rule 

restricts the transmission of quotation 

information to only those quotations 

that have been publicly disseminated. It 

requires any order that is transmitted 

over the phone to be immediately 

recorded in the EOC device. It prohibits 

the receipt of an order over a phone 

when the call is placed from off the 

Floor into the Trading Crowd. The Rule 

also provides that the Exchange may 

require the taping of any telephone line, 

and that ATP Holders and their 

employees agree to consent to tape 

recording of any line. 

The Exchange also proposes Rule 

902(i)(5), Records, in order to require 

the retention of certain records of all 

telephones and all other approved 

communications devices used to 

conduct business on the Exchange.11

NYSE Amex further proposes a 

retention period of three years, the first 

two years in an accessible place, 

consistent with the retention period of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 25781 

12See e-mail from Andrew Stevens, Chief 

Counsel—U.S. Equities & Derivatives, NYSE 

Euronext, to Gary Rubin, Attorney-Advisor, 

Commission, dated May 19, 2009, confirming that 

the reference to Rule 475 in the Purpose section and 

Exhibit 1 of the proposal should be corrected to 

refer to Rule 476. 

13The Exchange notes that Commentaries .01–.02 

and .04 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.2 do not apply 

specifically to subsection (h) and therefore are not 

reflected in the NYSE Amex proposed rule. The 

Exchange also notes that the concept reflected in 

Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.2 is 

incorporated into NYSE Amex proposed Rule 

902NY(i)(3)(B) and (4)(C). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

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

17 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

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

19 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 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. 

20 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

22For purposes of calculating the 60-day 

abrogation period, the Commission considers the 

proposed rule change to have been filed on May 18, 

2009, the date the Exchange filed Amendment 

No. 1. 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Rule 17a–4. 

The Exchange further proposes Rule 

902(i)(6), Revocation of Registration, 

which establishes the Exchange’s 

authority to deny, limit or revoke an 

ATP Holder’s permission to use of any 

registered telephone on the Trading 

Floor. Although an ATP Holder need 

only register with the Exchange, prior to 

use, any telephone to be used on the 

Trading Floor, the Exchange retains the 

right to deny, limit, or revoke an ATP 

Holder’s permission. Specifically, 

according to the proposed rule, the 

Exchange may deny, limit or revoke 

registration of any telephone whenever 

it determines, in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in Rule 476,12 that 

use of such device is inconsistent with 

the public interest, the protection of 

investors, or just and equitable 

principles of trade, or such device has 

been or is being used to facilitate any 

violation of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934, as amended, or rules 

thereunder, or the Exchange rules. 

Finally, similar to NYSE Arca Rule 

6.2(h)(10), the Exchange will not assume 

any liability for problems associated 

with the use of telephones or other 

communication devices.13

The Exchange proposes changes to 

Rule 476A (Imposition of Fines for 

Minor Violations of Rules) to replace 

obsolete references to Exchange Rule 

220 with accurate references to 

Exchange Rule 902NY(i). The Exchange 

also proposes adding text designed to 

specifically address violations of 

Exchange Rule 902NY(i) pertaining to 

the pre-approval of alternative 

communication devices. Consistent 

with violations of Exchange Rule 

902NY(i) regarding an ATP Holder’s 

failure to register telephones prior to 

their use, the Exchange proposes to 

establish first, second, and third level 

monetary fines of $500.00, $1,000.00, 

and $2,500.00 regarding an ATP 

Holder’s unauthorized use of alternative 

communication devices. 

The Exchange also seeks to clarify 

recently adopted language in Rule 

902NY(g) governing the removal of 

Hand Held Trading Devices from the 

Trading Floor to make it clear that 

removal of such devices is prohibited, 

that the prohibition extends to any 

person, including but not limited to 

ATP Holders and ATP Holder 

employees, and that such violation is 

subject to disciplinary action pursuant 

to Rules 476 or 476A. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b) 14 of the Act, in general, and 

furthers the objectives of Section 

6(b)(5),15 in particular, in that it is 

designed to facilitate transactions in 

securities, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to enhance 

competition, and to protect investors 

and the public interest, in that it 

proposes to modernize and clarify rules 

for the use of telephones and other 

communication devices on the Trading 

Floor. 

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 16 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(6) thereunder.17 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) 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 18 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 

thereunder.19

A proposed rule change filed under 

Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 20 normally does not 

become operative prior to 30 days after 

the date of the filing. However, pursuant 

to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii),21 the 

Commission may designate a shorter 

time if such action is consistent with the 

protection of investors and 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 Act.22

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–2009–17 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–2009–17. 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/ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

25782 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Notices 

23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59825 

(April 27, 2009), 74 FR 20771 (‘‘Notice’’). 4Amendment No. 1 was a technical amendment 

to correct an inadvertent error in language in the 

Purpose Section of 19b–4. 5 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). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 

8See Notice. 

9 Id. NYSE Amex stated that one respondent, 

when asked about the proposed one second 

exposure periods, indicated that it ‘‘might be hard 

to respond that rapidly’’ but then went on to state 

that they felt NYSE Amex should make the change 

in order to match other option exchanges’ rules. Id. 

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 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–2009–17 and should be 

submitted on or before June 19, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.23

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–12448 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–59956; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex–2009–15] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex LLC; Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as 

Modified by Amendment No. 1, 

Amending Rule 935NY—Order 

Exposure Requirements To Reduce the 

Exposure Periods From Three 

Seconds to One Second 

May 21, 2009. 

I. Introduction 

On April 21, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC 

(‘‘NYSE Amex’’ 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 reduce certain order exposure 

periods from three seconds to one 

second. The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on May 5, 2009.3 The 

Commission received no comments on 

the proposal. The Exchange filed 

Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on 

May 20, 2009.4 This order approves the 

proposed rule change, as modified by 

Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated 

basis. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to reduce the exposure time 

during which Amex Users may not 

execute as principal against orders they 

represent as agent from three seconds to 

one second. Under the current Rule 

935NY, Order Exposure Requirements, 

Users may not execute as principal 

orders they represent as agent unless 

agency orders are first exposed on the 

Exchange for at least three seconds, or 

the User has been bidding or offering on 

the Exchange for at least three seconds 

prior to receiving an agency order that 

is executable against such bid or offer. 

During this three-second exposure 

period, other market participants may 

enter orders to trade against the exposed 

order. Under this proposal, the exposure 

periods contained in Rule 935NY would 

be reduced to one second. 

III. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

After carefully reviewing the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

finds that the proposal is consistent 

with the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to a national securities 

exchange.5 In particular, the 

Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act,6 which, among other 

things, requires that the rules of a 

national securities exchange be 

designed to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating transactions in securities, 

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 Commission 

also finds that the proposed rule change 

is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the 

Act,7 which requires that the rules of an 

exchange not impose any burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

The Commission believes that, given 

the electronic nature of the NYSE Amex 

System, reducing the exposure periods 

from three seconds to one second could 

facilitate the prompt execution of 

orders, while continuing to provide 

market participants with an opportunity 

to compete for exposed bids and offers. 

To substantiate that NYSE Amex 

members could receive, process, and 

communicate a response back to the 

Exchange within one second, the 

Exchange stated that it conducted a 

survey of Amex Trading Permit Holders 

(‘‘ATP Holders’’) to find out whether 

their systems were capable of receiving, 

processing, and responding to orders in 

a meaningful way within one second. 

NYSE Amex stated that of the six 

member firms that responded to the 

Exchange’s survey, four indicated that 

the turnaround time was less than one 

second, one declined to comment 

regarding its turnaround time, and one 

stated that it was not exactly sure of its 

turnaround time.8 NYSE Amex also 

stated that none of the responding ATP 

Holders anticipated any problems 

related to order processing if the 

Exchange reduced the exposure periods 

to one second, and none of the 

responding ATP Holders were opposed 

to the reduced exposure periods.9 Based 

on NYSE Amex’s statements regarding 

the survey results, the Commission 

believes that market participants should 

continue to have opportunities to 

compete for exposed bids and offers 

within a one second exposure period. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

that it is consistent with the Act for 

NYSE Amex to reduce the exposure 

times discussed herein from three 

seconds to one second. 

The Commission finds good cause to 

approve the proposed rule change prior 

to the thirtieth day after publication for 

comment in the Federal Register. The 

Commission notes that the proposed 

rule change was noticed for a fifteen-day 

comment period, and no comments 

were received. The Commission 

believes that the Exchange has provided 

reasonable support for its belief that the 

Exchange’s market participants would 

continue to have an opportunity to 

compete for exposed bids and offers if 

the exposure periods were reduced to 

one second as proposed. Finally, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES