28078 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The October 3, 2008 filing was Amendment No. 

3 to the Plan. NYSE Arca initially filed the Plan on 

September 18, 2007, filed Amendment No. 1 on 

December 10, 2007, and filed Amendment No. 2 on 

April 17, 2008. 

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

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. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Investment Management, under delegated 

authority. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–13812 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60054; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca-2009–45] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed 

Rule Change To Adopt Rules To 

Implement the Options Order 

Protection and Locked/Crossed Market 

Plan 

June 5, 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 20, 

2009, the NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE 

Arca’’ 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 ‘‘Plan’’), and to delete 

provisions which will no longer be 

applicable following adoption of the 

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 

amend Rules 6.92 through 6.94 [sic] of 

the Exchange’s rules in their entirety. 

The proposed rules also will amend 

various other rules to accommodate the 

Plan. 

Background to the plan and the 

implementing rules. NYSE Arca filed 

the current version of the Plan on 

October 31, 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 

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 Arca 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 tradethrough prohibition. Like Regulation 

NMS,9 the Plan requires participating 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28079 

10Section 6 of the Plan. 

11 Id. 

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

Rule 6.92(a)(3), NBBO in Rule 6.92((a)(10), NonFirm in Rule 6.92(a)(11), OPRA Plan in Rule 

6.92(a)(12), and Participant in Rule 6.92(a)(13). 

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

Offer’’ in Rule 6.92(a)(1), ‘‘Bid’’/‘‘Offer’’ in Rule 

6.92(a) (2), ‘‘Intermarket Sweep Order (‘‘ISO’’)’’ in 

Rule 6.62(t) [sic], and ‘‘Quotation’’ in Rule 

6.92(a)(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’’). 

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 ISE Rule 723. 

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 6.62(z). 

Other proposed rule changes would 

amend and/or replace NYSE Arca’s 

current Linkage rules in Rules 6.92–6.96 

as described below: 

Rule 6.92(a)—Definitions. This 

proposed rule incorporates all the 

operative definitions from the Plan into 

the NYSE Arca 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 6.92(a)(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, NYSE 

Arca had previously adopted current 

Rule 6.92(4), which is substantially 

identical among all the options 

exchanges. We propose to carry that 

definition into the revised Rule 6.92 

unchanged. 

Rule 6.94—Order Protection. 

Paragraph (a) of Rule 6.94 provides that, 

subject to specified exceptions, NYSE 

Arca OTP Holders shall not effect tradethroughs. Paragraph (b) provides for the 

following trade-through exceptions: 

• System Issues: Rule 6.94(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 Arca Equities 

Rule 7.37(f), adopted pursuant to 

Regulation NMS. 

• Trading Rotations: Rule 6.94(b)(2) 

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

and carries forward the current tradethrough exception in the Old Plan15 and 

current Rule 6.94(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 Arca 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 6.94(b)(3) 

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

and is the functional equivalent to 

NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37(e)(3) 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 tradethroughs in a Crossed Market will allow 

the market quickly return to 

equilibrium. 

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

Rule 6.94(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 

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 6.94(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 6.94(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 6.94(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 

6.94(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 6.94(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 Arca 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 6.94(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 

28080 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

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 (‘‘Division’’), Commission, 

dated May 29, 2009. 

25See id. 

26See id. 

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. 

28See e-mail from Andrew Stevens, Chief 

Counsel—U.S. Equities & Derivatives, NYSE 

Euronext, to David Liu, Assistant Director, and 

Rebekah Liu, Special Counsel, Division, 

Commission, dated June 1, 2009. 

commitment to make the trade. An 

example would be a volume-weighted 

average price trade, or ‘‘VWAP.’’ This 

corresponds to a trade-through 

exemption in Regulation NMS for equity 

trades.23 NYSE Arca 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 6.95—Locked and Crossed 

Markets. Proposed Rule 6.95 

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 6.95(a) contains the 

general prohibition that NYSE Arca OTP 

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 OTP 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: 

• 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.25

This fourth 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.26

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 Arca 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 

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 Arca will assume that the quote 

represents, in whole or in part, a 

customer order. That is, NYSE Arca 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 6.96—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 

6.96. 

Temporary Rule 6.96 provides that 

NYSE Arca 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 6.96. 

Amendment of other NYSE Arca rules 

to accommodate the plan. We propose 

to amend four NYSE Arca rules in 

addition to those described above.28

First, Rule 6.33, 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 6.35, Appointment of 

Market Makers, Commentaries .02–.04 

described 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. 

Third, Rule 6.76A, Order Execution— 

OX, notes that orders routed away from 

the Exchange are subject to the 

applicable trading rules of the relevant 

Market Center and the relevant Linkage 

Plan rules. With the termination of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28081 

29See id. 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

31 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

Linkage, such a reference is no longer 

necessary and we thus propose to delete 

this reference to the Linkage Plan.29

Finally, Rule 10.12, 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’’). The basis under the Act for 

this proposed rule change is found in 

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,30 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–NYSEArca–2009–45 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–NYSEArca–2009–45. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 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– 

NYSEArca–2009–45 and should be 

submitted on or before July 6, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.31

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–13811 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60053; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2009–07] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 

Change Relating to the Termination of 

the CDINet System 

June 5, 2009. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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

notice is hereby given that on May 29, 

2009, the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’ or 

‘‘Board’’), 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 substantially prepared by the 

MSRB. The MSRB has filed the proposal 

as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule change 

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

the Act,3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 

thereunder,4 which renders the proposal 

effective upon filing with the 

Commission. The Commission is 

publishing this notice to solicit 

comments on the proposed rule change 

from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The MSRB is proposing to terminate 

the MSRB’s CDINet system for material 

event notices received pursuant to 

Exchange Act Rule 15c2–12 on July 1, 

2009. The text of the proposed rule 

change is available on the MSRB’s Web 

site at (http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/ 

sec.asp), at the MSRB’s principal office, 

and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. The full text of MSRB 

facilities is available at http:// 

www.msrb.org/msrb1/rulesandforms.