Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27375 

4 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). 

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

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

7 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The November 25, 2008 filing was Amendment 

No. 1 to the Plan. The American Stock Exchange 

LLC (the predecessor to NYSE Amex LLC) initially 

filed the Plan on June 17, 2008. 

references to series and replace them 

with class. Specifically, a Market Maker 

will be required to submit valid 

quotations on a daily basis for at least 

eighty percent (80%) of the time that a 

class is open for trading in at least 

ninety percent (90%) of its appointed 

classes. Further, on a daily basis, a 

Market Maker will be required to post 

valid quotations at least sixty percent 

(60%) of the time in each of its 

appointed classes during the time that 

the class is open for trading. The 

Exchange states that this proposed 

change should allow Market Makers to 

focus their strategy on the entire class to 

which it is appointed, rather than 

implementing a strategy utilizing each 

series within a class. At the same time, 

the proposal allows a Market Maker, if 

it chooses, to bring more liquidity to the 

more actively traded series, rather than 

focusing on series with less activity. 

After careful review, the Commission 

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.4 In particular, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act,5 which requires that an exchange 

have rules 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 facilitating 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 

notes that under the proposal, Market 

Maker quoting obligations will be based 

on a daily time measurement, as 

opposed to a requirement to 

continuously provide quotations in a 

specified percentage of appointed 

options. Market Makers will, however, 

still be subject to requirements on how 

often they must quote. Specifically, 

Market Makers will be required to 

submit valid quotations on a daily basis 

for at least 80% of the time that a class 

is open in 90% of their appointed 

classes and be required to post valid 

quotations at least 60% of the time in 

each of its appointed classes during the 

time that the class is open for trading. 

The Commission also notes that the 

proposal helps to clarify Market Maker 

quoting obligations in response to an 

RFQ or a request by an Options Official 

to quote in the interest of a fair and 

orderly market. The Commission 

believes these changes are consistent 

with the Act. 

Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–BX–2009– 

020) be, and it hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.7

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–13396 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60015; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex–2009–19] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules 

To Implement the Options Order 

Protection and Locked/Crossed Market 

Plan 

June 1, 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 11, 

2009, the NYSE Amex LLC (‘‘NYSE 

Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’), filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to adopt rules 

to implement the Options Order 

Protection and Locked/Crossed Market 

Plan. The text of the proposed rule 

change 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 Exchange proposes to adopt rules 

to implement the Plan. These rules will 

replace Rules 990NY through 993NY of 

the Exchange’s rules in their entirety. 

The proposed rules also will amend or 

remove various other rules to 

accommodate the Plan. 

Background to the Plan and the 

Implementing Rules 

NYSE Amex filed the current version 

of the Plan on November 25, 2008.3 The 

Plan would replace the current Plan for 

the Purpose of Creating and Operating 

an Intermarket Option Linkage (‘‘Old 

Plan’’). The Old Plan requires its 

participant exchanges to operate a 

stand-alone system or ‘‘Linkage’’ for 

sending order-flow between exchanges 

to limit trade-throughs. The Options 

Clearing Corporation (‘‘OCC’’) operates 

the Linkage system. The Linkage rules 

provide for unique types of Linkage 

orders, with a complicated set of 

requirements as to who may send such 

orders and under what conditions. 

While the Linkage largely has 

operated satisfactorily, it is under 

significant strain. When the 

Commission approved the Old Plan in 

2000, average daily volume (‘‘ADV’’) in 

the options market was approximately 

2.6 million contracts across all 

exchanges. Now the ADV has increased 

to more than 10 million contracts, 

putting added strain on the ability of 

market makers to comply with the 

complex Linkage rules. At the same 

time, the options markets have been 

moving towards quoting in pennies, and 

are quoting in pennies options 

representing over half the total industry 

27376 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

4Release No. 34–51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 

37496 (June 29, 2005). 

5Regulation NMS Rule 611(a). 

6Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(30). 

7Sections 5(a)(i) and 5(b)(iv) of the Plan. 

8Section 2(9) of the Plan. 

9Regulation NMS Rule 611(c) and Section 5(c) of 

the Plan. 

10Section 6 of the Plan. 

11 Id. 

12See, e.g., the definitions of ‘‘Broker-Dealer’’ in 

Rule 990NY(3), NBBO in Rule 990NY(10), NonFirm in Rule 990NY(11), OPRA Plan in Rule 

990NY(12), and Participant in Rule 990NY(13). 

13See, e.g., the definitions of ‘‘Best Bid’’/‘‘Best 

Offer’’ in Rule 990NY(1), ‘‘Bid’’/‘‘Offer’’ in Rule 

990NY(2), ‘‘Intermarket Sweep Order (‘‘ISO’’)’’ in 

Rule 900.3NY(t), and ‘‘Quotation’’ in Rule 

990NY(16). 

14See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1). 

15See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(E). 

16See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(3) under the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’). 

volume. This greatly increases the 

number of price changes in an option, 

giving rise to greater chances of tradethroughs and missing markets as market 

makers send Linkage orders and have to 

wait for a response. 

Experience in the equities markets 

shows that there is a more efficient way 

to provide price protection in options. 

When first implemented, the Linkage 

represented a vast improvement over 

the then-current equities priceprotection system, which depended on 

the operation of the Intermarket Trading 

System (‘‘ITS’’). The plan governing ITS 

imposed long waiting times for filling 

ITS commitments and a cumbersome 

method for satisfying trade-throughs. 

Learning from the shortcomings of ITS, 

the options Linkage has shorter waiting 

periods and more efficient trade-through 

protections. 

The equity price-protection 

mechanisms have now leapfrogged the 

options Linkage. By adopting Regulation 

NMS in 2005 the Commission 

effectively terminated ITS, replacing it 

with a rules-based price-protection 

system.4 The key to Regulation NMS’s 

price-protection provisions is the 

Intermarket Sweep Order, or ISO. Each 

equity exchange must adopt rules 

‘‘reasonably designed to prevent tradethroughs.’’ 5 Exempted from tradethrough liability is an ISO, which is an 

order a member sends to an exchange 

displaying a price inferior to the 

national best bid and offer (‘‘NBBO’’), 

while simultaneously sending orders to 

trade against the full size of any other 

exchange that is displaying the NBBO.6

The Regulation NMS rules-based 

price-protection system is working well. 

It requires neither a central linkage 

mechanism nor a complex set of 

operating rules. It also has eliminated 

the need for achieving unanimity to 

change even the most minor aspects of 

a linkage mechanism. A simple 

prohibition against most trade-throughs, 

coupled with the ISO mechanism, has 

given the equities markets a straightforward system to provide customers 

with price protection in a fast-moving, 

high-volume market that is quoted in 

pennies. NYSE Amex and the other 

options exchange participants in the 

Plan intend for the Plan, and the 

implementing rules, to bring the 

efficiencies of Regulation NMS to the 

options market. 

Operation of the Plan 

The Plan effectively would apply the 

Regulation NMS price-protection 

provisions to the options markets. 

Similar to Regulation NMS, the Plan 

would require participants to adopt 

rules ‘‘reasonably designed to prevent 

Trade-Throughs,’’ while exempting ISOs 

from that prohibition.7 The definition of 

an ISO is essentially the same as under 

Regulation NMS,8 and there are a 

number of additional exceptions to the 

trade-through prohibition. Like 

Regulation NMS,9 the Plan requires 

participating exchanges to take 

reasonable steps to establish that ISOs 

meet the requirements of the Plan. 

With respect to locked and crossed 

markets, similar to Regulation NMS the 

Plan requires its participants to adopt, 

maintain and enforce rules requiring 

members: to avoid displaying locked 

and crossed markets; to reconcile such 

markets; and to prohibit members from 

engaging in a pattern or practice of 

displaying locked and crossed 

markets.10 With respect to locked 

markets, the Plan differs from 

Regulation NMS in that it specifically 

permits exceptions to the locked market 

prohibitions ‘‘as contained in the rules 

of a Participant approved by the 

Commission.’’ 11

Description of the Implementing Rules 

The Exchange proposes to define 

‘‘Intermarket Sweep Order’’ as a new 

order type in proposed Rule 900.3NY(t). 

Other proposed rule changes would 

amend and replace NYSE Amex’s 

current Linkage rules in Rules 940 and 

990NY–993NY as described below: 

Rule 990NY—Definitions 

This proposed rule incorporates all 

the operative definitions from the Plan 

into the NYSE Amex rulebook. With one 

exception, the parties to the Plan 

derived all such definitions either from 

the Old Plan 12 or Regulation NMS.13

The one exception is the definition of 

‘‘complex trade’’ in Rule 990NY(4). A 

‘‘complex trade’’ is exempt from tradethrough liability. The exemption in the 

Old Plan simply refers to complex 

trades ‘‘as that term may be defined by 

the Operating Committee from time to 

time.’’ Based on that provision, the 

Exchange had previously adopted 

current Rule 940(b)(3), which is 

substantially identical among all the 

options exchanges. We propose to carry 

that definition into the revised Rule 

990NY unchanged. 

Rule 991NY—Order Protection 

Paragraph (a) of Rule 991NY provides 

that, subject to specified exceptions, 

NYSE Amex ATP Holders shall not 

effect trade-throughs. Paragraph (b) 

provides for the following trade-through 

exceptions: 

• System Issues: Rule 991NY(b)(1) 

implements Section 5(b)(i) of the Plan 

by establishing an exception for tradethroughs due to system-failures. This is 

akin to the exception in Regulation 

NMS for equity securities and permits 

trading through an Eligible Exchange 

that is experiencing system problems.14

The Exchange is proposing ‘‘self-help’’ 

rules similar to its NYSE Amex Equities 

Rule 126A–AEMI, adopted pursuant to 

Regulation NMS. 

• Trading Rotations: Rule 

991NY(b)(2) implements Section 5(b)(ii) 

of the Plan and carries forward the 

current trade-through exception in the 

Old Plan 15 and current Rule 991NY 

(b)(5) related to the opening of markets. 

It is the options equivalent to the single 

price opening exception in Regulation 

NMS for equity securities.16 NYSE 

Amex uses a trading auction to open an 

option for trading, or to reopen an 

option after a trading halt. The opening 

is effectively a single price auction to 

price the option and there are no 

practical means to include prices on 

other exchanges in that auction. 

• Crossed Markets: Rule 991NY(b)(3) 

implements Section 5(b)(iii) of the Plan 

and is the functional equivalent to 

NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 128C– 

AEMI for equity securities. If the best 

intermarket bid is higher than the best 

intermarket offer, it indicates that there 

is some form of market dislocation or 

inaccurate quoting. Permitting 

transactions to be executed without 

regard to trade-throughs in a Crossed 

Market will allow the market quickly 

return to equilibrium. 

• Intermarket Sweep Orders (‘‘ISOs’’): 

Rule 991NY(b)(4) is the ISO exemption 

and implements Sections 5(b)(iv) and 

(v) of the Plan. Section 5(b)(iv) of the 

Plan permits a Participant to execute 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27377 

17See Regulation NMS Rules 611(b)(5) and (6). 

18See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(8). 

19See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(C). 

20See Old Plan Section 8(c)(iii)(G). 

21See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(9). 

22See, for instance, ISE Rule 723. 

23See Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(7). 

24See e-mail from Andrew Stevens, Chief 

Counsel—U.S. Equities & Derivatives, NYSE 

Euronext, to David Liu, Assistant Director, Division 

of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated May 

29, 2009. 

25See id. 

26See id. 

orders it receives from other 

Participants or members that are marked 

as ISO even when it is not at the NBBO. 

Section 5(b)(v) of the Plan allows a 

Participant to execute inbound orders 

when it is not at the NBBO, provided it 

simultaneously ‘‘sweeps’’ all betterpriced interest displayed by Eligible 

Exchanges. These provisions are the 

options equivalents of the 

corresponding Regulation NMS equity 

rules.17

• Quote Flickering: Rule 991NY(b)(5) 

implements Section 5(b)(vi) of the Plan 

and corresponds to the flickering quote 

exception in Regulation NMS for equity 

securities.18 Options quotations change 

as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than 

equity quotations. Indeed, they track the 

price of the underlying security and 

thus change when the price of the 

underlying security changes. This 

exception provides a form of ‘‘safe 

harbor’’ to market participants to allow 

them to trade through prices that have 

changed within a second of the 

transaction causing a nominal tradethrough. 

• Non-Firm Quotes: Rule 991NY(b)(6) 

implements Section 5(b)(vii) of the Plan 

and carries forward the current non-firm 

quote trade-through exception in the 

Old Plan.19 By definition, an exchange’s 

quotations may not be firm for 

automatic execution during this trading 

state and thus should not be protected 

from trade-throughs. In effect, these 

quotations are akin to ‘‘manual 

quotations’’ under Regulation NMS. 

• Complex Trades: Rule 991NY(b)(7) 

implements Section 5(b)(viii) of the Plan 

and carries forward the current complex 

trade exception in the Old Plan.20

Complex trades consist of multiple 

transactions (‘‘legs’’) effected at a net 

price, and it is not practical to price 

each leg at a price that does not 

constitute a trade-through. 

• Customer Stopped Orders: Rule 

991NY(b)(8) implements Section 5(b)(ix) 

of the Plan and corresponds to the 

customer stopped order exception in 

Regulation NMS for equity securities.21

It permits broker-dealers to execute 

large orders over time at a price agreed 

upon by a customer, even though the 

price of the option may change before 

the order is executed in its entirety. 

• Stopped Orders and Price 

Improvement: Rule 991NY(b)(9) 

implements Section 5(b)(x) of the Plan 

and would apply if an order is stopped 

at price that did not constitute a tradethrough at the time of the stop. This 

exception applies to those exchanges 

that offer a ‘‘Price Improvement 

Mechanism’’ by which members could 

seek price improvement for that order, 

even if the market moves in the interim, 

and the transaction ultimately is 

effected at a price that would trade 

through the then currently-displayed 

market.22 NYSE Amex does not 

currently permit these types of options 

trades, and any transaction-type relying 

on this exemption would require the 

Exchange to adopt implementing rules, 

subject to Commission review and 

approval. 

• Benchmark Trades: Rule 

991NY(b)(10) implements Section 

5(b)(xi) of the Plan and would cover 

trades executed at a price not tied to the 

price of an option at the time of 

execution, and for which the material 

terms were not reasonably determinable 

at the time of the commitment to make 

the trade. An example would be a 

volume-weighted average price trade, or 

‘‘VWAP.’’ This corresponds to a tradethrough exemption in Regulation NMS 

for equity trades.23 NYSE Amex does 

not currently permit these types of 

options trades, and any transaction-type 

relying on this exemption would require 

the Exchange to adopt implementing 

rules, subject to Commission review and 

approval. 

Rule 992NY—Locked and Crossed 

Markets 

Proposed Rule 992NY implements 

Section 6 of the Plan, which requires 

Plan participants to establish, maintain 

and enforce rules that: require their 

members reasonably to avoid displaying 

locked and crossed markets; are 

reasonably designed to assure 

reconciliation of locked and crossed 

markets; and prohibit their members 

from engaging in a pattern or practice of 

displaying locked and crossed markets. 

Section 6 of the Plan further allows an 

exchange to provide exceptions to these 

limitations as ‘‘contained in the rules of 

a Participant approved by the 

Commission.’’ 

Proposed Rule 992NY(a) contains the 

general prohibition that NYSE Amex 

ATP Holders shall reasonably avoid 

displaying, and shall not engage in a 

pattern or practice of displaying, any 

quotations that lock or cross the best bid 

or offer of another exchange. We 

propose four exceptions to this general 

prohibition.24

The first exception would apply when 

we are experiencing system issues, and 

is similar to the systems issues 

exception to the trade-through rule. The 

second exception applies when there is 

a crossed market, and also is similar to 

the corresponding trade-through 

exception. The third exception would 

apply when an ATP Holder has 

simultaneously routed an ISO to execute 

against the full displayed size of any 

locked or crossed Protected Bid or 

Protected Offer. The fourth proposed 

exception applies to locked markets in 

the following circumstances: 25

• Neither the locking or locked quote 

represents, in whole or in part, a 

customer order; or 

• A customer enters a bid or offer that 

locks a non-customer quotation on 

another market, and the customer, on a 

case-by-case basis, authorizes the 

locking of the other market’s quotation. 

This fourth 26 exemption recognizes 

an important distinction between the 

equities and options markets. Options 

market makers compete for order flow 

by disseminating quotations in multiple 

series with respect to each underlying 

security, distributing liquidity over a 

much greater universe of products than 

in the equity markets. As a result, the 

options markets are more reliant on 

market maker quotations to provide 

liquidity, with fewer customer orders in 

each series than in each underlying 

security, where liquidity is concentrated 

in one product. 

With market makers on multiple 

exchanges constantly updating their 

quotations in all these series based on 

mathematical formulae there is a greater 

likelihood of market maker quotations 

locking. We believe that in most cases 

locked market maker quotations are 

good for the investing public. Effectively 

locked markets provide a ‘‘zero spread,’’ 

allowing market participants to buy and 

sell an option at the same price. On 

NYSE Amex these quotations are firm, 

and are fully executable on an 

automated basis. 

We recognize that locked markets are 

more complicated where one or both of 

the locking quotations represents a 

customer order. Where there is contraside market interest willing to trade 

with a customer, the customer order 

should be filled. Thus, we would not 

exempt from the locked market 

prohibition situations involving 

customer orders unless the customer 

entering the locking order specifically 

27378 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 

27We can envision a customer authorizing a lock 

when the fees associating with trading against the 

locked market make the execution price 

uneconomical to the customer. 

28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

29 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

authorizes the lock on a case-by-case 

basis.27

The Exchange will not implement this 

proposed exception to the locked 

market prohibition unless the Exchange 

can identify that an order on another 

exchange is for the account of a 

customer. The options exchanges 

currently are working on a method to so 

identify customer quotations through 

the Options Price Reporting Authority. 

Absent the ability to identify a customer 

quote as part of an exchange’s BBO, 

NYSE Amex will assume that the quote 

represents, in whole or in part, a 

customer order. That is, NYSE Amex 

will not permit its members to avail 

themselves of this exemption unless 

another exchange has informed the 

Exchange that it will designate all 

customer orders as such at OPRA, and 

such exchange’s quotation does not 

contain such designation. If an exchange 

opts not to identify its customer 

quotations, the Exchange will treat all of 

that exchange’s quotations as customer 

orders and, absent application of 

another exception, will not permit locks 

of such quotations. 

The Exchange also proposes that the 

exemption is only operative for as long 

as the Exchange is willing to identify 

Customer orders in its own quote. 

Temporary Rule 993NY—Temporary 

Rule Governing P and P/A Orders 

When the Plan and implementing 

rules become operative it is possible 

that not all the options exchanges will 

be functionally able to operate pursuant 

to the Plan. Thus, in order to ensure 

there is full intermarket trade-through 

protection during this interim period, 

we propose to retain certain minimum 

trade-through rules based on the Old 

Plan until all the options exchanges are 

operating pursuant to the Plan. When 

that occurs we will file a rule change 

with the Commission to delete 

Temporary Rule 993NY. 

Temporary Rule 993NY provides that 

NYSE Amex will continue to accept 

Principal Acting as Agent (‘‘P/A’’) and 

Principal Orders from options 

exchanges which have not fully 

discontinued use of the OCC managed 

routing hub. The handling of these 

orders will be subject to Temporary 

Rule 993NY. 

Amendment of Other NYSE Amex Rules 

To Accommodate the Plan 

We propose to amend four NYSE 

Amex rules in addition to those 

described above. First, Rule 921NY, 

Registration of Market Makers, allows 

certain Market Makers to act in an 

agency capacity for the purpose of 

sending Principal Acting as Agent (‘‘P/ 

A’’) Orders through the Linkage. With 

the termination of the Linkage such 

provision no longer will be necessary 

and we thus propose to delete this 

provision. 

Second, Rule 923NY, Appointment of 

Market Makers, Commentaries .01–.03 

describes Intermarket Linkage Market 

Makers (‘‘IMM’’) and described when 

and how IMMs would be appointed, 

and the procedures that governed their 

appointment. With the termination of 

the Linkage such provisions will no 

longer be necessary and we thus 

propose to delete them. 

Rule 964NY, Display, Priority and 

Order Allocation—Trading Systems, 

will be amended to remove references to 

the Intermarket Linkage. 

Finally, Rule 476A, Minor Rule Plan, 

describes certain violations which are 

part of an expedited disciplinary 

process, and their attendant fines. The 

Exchange proposes to modify those 

violations which are related to the 

Linkage and make them applicable to 

the Plan and the proposed Rules. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(the ‘‘Act’’).28 The basis under the Act 

for this proposed rule change is found 

in Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,29 in that 

the proposed rule change is designed to 

promote just and equitable principles of 

trade, remove impediments to and 

perfect the mechanisms of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. In 

particular, the Exchange believes that 

adopting rules that implement the Plan 

will facilitate the trading of options in 

a national market system by establishing 

more efficient protection against tradethroughs and locked and crossed 

markets. 

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 

Within 35 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period (i) 

as the Commission may designate up to 

90 days of such date if it finds such 

longer period to be appropriate and 

publishes its reasons for so finding or 

(ii) as to which the Exchange consents, 

the Commission will: 

(A) by order approve the proposed 

rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

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 

No. SR–NYSEAmex–2009–19 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSEAmex–2009–19. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 9, 2009 / Notices 27379 

30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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–2009–19 and should be 

submitted on or before June 30, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.30

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–13394 Filed 6–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Request and 

Comment Request 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) publishes a list of information 

collection packages requiring clearance 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in compliance with 

Public Law (Pub. L.) 104–13, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

effective October 1, 1995. This notice 

includes revisions and extensions of 

OMB-approved information collections 

and a new collection. 

SSA is soliciting comments on the 

accuracy of the agency’s burden 

estimate; the need for the information; 

its practical utility; ways to enhance its 

quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to 

minimize the burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Mail, e-mail, or 

fax your comments and 

recommendations on the information 

collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer 

and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer 

to the addresses or fax numbers shown 

below. 

(OMB) Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, 

Fax: 202–395–6974, E-mail address: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

(SSA) Social Security Administration, 

DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance 

Officer, 1332 Annex Building, 6401 

Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, 

Fax: 410–965–6400, E-mail address: 

OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov. 

I. The information collection below is 

pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to 

OMB within 60 days from the date of 

this notice. To be sure we consider your 

comments, we must receive them no 

later than August 10, 2009. Individuals 

can obtain copies of the collection 

instrument by calling the SSA Reports 

Clearance Officer at 410–965–3758 or by 

writing to the e-mail address we list 

above. 

1. Psychiatric Review Technique—20 

CFR 404.1520a, 416.920a—0960–0413. 

The SSA–2506–BK assists the Disability 

Determination Services (DDS) offices in 

evaluating mental impairments by 

helping to organize and present the 

mental findings in a clear, concise, and 

consistent manner; consider and 

evaluate all aspects of the mental 

impairment relevant to the individual’s 

ability to perform work-related mental 

functions; and identify additional 

evidence needed to determine 

impairment severity. 

The respondents are the State DDSs 

and Federal DDSs administering the 

Title II and Title XVI programs. 

Type of Request: Extension of an 

OMB-approved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 54. 

Frequency of Response: 27,553. 

Average Burden per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 371,966 

hours. 

2. Certificate of Election for Reduced 

Spouse’s Benefits—20 CFR 404.421— 

0960–0398. Reduced benefits are not 

payable to an already entitled spouse, at 

least age 62 but under full retirement 

age, who no longer has a child in care 

unless the spouse elects to receive 

reduced benefits. If a spouse decides to 

elect reduced benefits, they must 

complete Form SSA–25. SSA uses the 

information collected on Form SSA–25 

to pay a qualified spouse who elects to 

receive a reduced benefit. Respondents 

are entitled spouses seeking reduced 

benefits. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 30,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 2 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 1,000 

hours. 

II. SSA has submitted the information 

collections we list below to OMB for 

clearance. Your comments on the 

information collections would be most 

useful if OMB and SSA receive them 

within 30 days from the date of this 

publication. To be sure we consider 

your comments, we must receive them 

no later than July 9, 2009. You can 

obtain a copy of the OMB clearance 

packages by calling the SSA Reports 

Clearance Officer at 410–965–3758 or by 

writing to the above e-mail address. 

1. Statement of Employer—20 CFR 

404.801–404.803—0960–0030. SSA uses 

Form SSA–7011–F4 to substantiate 

allegations of wages paid to workers 

when those wages do not appear in 

SSA’s records of earnings and the 

worker does not have proof of those 

earnings. SSA uses the information from 

this form to process claims for Social 

Security benefits and to resolve 

discrepancies in the individual’s Social 

Security earnings record. We only send 

Form SSA–7011–F4 to employers if we 

deem it necessary. We make every effort 

to locate the earnings information 

within our records before we contact the 

employer. The respondents are 

employers who can verify wage 

allegations made by wage earners. 

Note: This is a correction notice. SSA 

published this information collection as an 

extension on April 07, 2009 at 74 FR 15808. 

Since we are revising the Privacy Act 

Statement, this is now a revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 925,000. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 20 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 308,333 

hours. 

2. Statement of Claimant or Other 

Person—20 CFR 404.702 & 416.570— 

0960–0045. SSA uses the SSA–795 to 

obtain information from claimants or 

other persons having knowledge of facts 

in connection with claims for 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or 

Social Security benefits when there is 

no standard form to collect the needed 

information. SSA uses the information 

to process claims for benefits or for 

ongoing issues related to the above 

programs. The respondents are 

applicants/recipients of SSI or Social 

Security benefits, or others who are in 

a position to provide information 

pertinent to the claim(s). 

Type of Request: Revision of an OMBapproved information collection. 

Number of Respondents: 305,500. 

Frequency of Response: 1. 

Average Burden per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 76,375 

hours. 

3. Statement of Self-Employment 

Income—20 CFR 404.101, 404.110,