30190 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

specialists or the equivalent (which are 

known as DPMs on CBSX). Therefore, 

the Commission believes that it is 

reasonable and consistent with the Act 

to make additional securities available 

for trading on CBSX without the 

participation of a DPM. In taking this 

action, the Commission has relied on 

CBOE’s representation that this proposal 

is not intended to affect existing DPM 

appointments. The Commission further 

believes that it is within the discretion 

of the Exchange to require DPMs to 

begin quoting in their required 

securities at 8:30 a.m. rather than, as 

under the Exchange’s current rule, at 

8:15 a.m. (Chicago time). 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2009– 

030) is approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.8

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–14799 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60117; File No. SR– 

NYSEAmex–2009–25] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Amex, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change Amending the Schedule 

of Fees and Charges for Exchange 

Services by Adding a Ratio Threshold 

Fee 

June 16, 2009. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that, on June 10, 

2009, NYSE Amex LLC. (‘‘NYSE Amex’’ 

or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the 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 amend its 

Schedule of Fees and Charges for 

Exchange Services (‘‘Fee Schedule’’) by 

adding a Ratio Threshold Fee. While 

changes to the Schedule pursuant to this 

proposal will be effective upon filing, 

the proposed fee will become operative 

on June 10, 2009. 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 Exchange proposes adding a 

Ratio Threshold Fee to its Fee Schedule. 

The proposed Ratio Threshold Fee will 

be charged to ATP Holders based on the 

number of orders entered compared to 

the number of executions received in a 

calendar month. The fee will be 

assessed as follows: 

Monthly order to execution ratio Monthly 

charge 

Between 10,000 and 14,999 to 1 ... $5,000 

Between 15,000 and 19,999 to 1 ... 10,000 

Between 20,000 and 24,999 to 1 ... 20,000 

25,000 to 1 and greater .................. 35,000 

This fee shall not apply to orders that 

improve the Exchange’s prevailing best 

bid-offer (BBO) market at the time the 

orders are received. 

ATP Holders with order to execution 

ratios of 10,000 to 1 or greater have the 

potential residual effect of exhausting 

system resources, bandwidth, and 

capacity. Such order to execution ratios 

may, in turn, create latency and impact 

other ATP Holder’s ability to receive 

timely executions. Recognizing that 

orders and executions often occur in 

large numbers, the purpose of this fee is 

to focus on activity that is truly 

disproportionate while fairly allocating 

costs among members. The proposed fee 

has multiple thresholds and is greater at 

higher order to execution ratios because 

the potential impact on exchange 

systems, bandwidth and capacity 

becomes greater with increased order to 

execution ratios. 

Additionally, the Exchange proposes 

an exception whereby ATP Holders will 

not be charged the Ratio Threshold Fee 

if they incur charges on a monthly basis 

pursuant to the Cancellation Fee. The 

Cancellation Fee is charged only for 

cancelled public customer orders in 

excess of the established thresholds and 

is designed to protect customer priority. 

By virtue of this exception, the Ratio 

Threshold Fee will, in effect, only be 

assessed on non-customer orders. Due to 

the necessity of the Cancellation Fee to 

protect customer priority and the 

Exchange’s need to allocate costs for the 

use of bandwidth and capacity among 

all members, the Exchange believes the 

structure of the Ratio Threshold Fee 

compared to the Cancellation Fee is 

appropriate because firms paying the 

Cancellation Fee will not also be 

charged the Ratio Threshold Fee. 

The new Ratio Threshold Fee will 

become effective on June 10, 2009. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) 

of the Act, in general, and Section 

6(b)(4), in particular, in that it provides 

for the equitable allocation of dues, fees 

and other charges among its members 

and other market participants that use 

the trading facilities of NYSE Amex 

Options. Under this proposal, all 

similarly situated members of NYSE 

Amex Options will be charged the same 

reasonable dues, fees and other charges. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 24, 2009 / Notices 30191 

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

5 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Exchange Act Release No. 59885 (May 7, 

2009); 74 FR 22788 (May 14, 2009). 

4See Rule 13802(c)(3). These specially qualified 

arbitrators are attorneys familiar with employment 

law who have at least ten years of legal experience. 

In addition, a chair or single arbitrator may not have 

represented primarily the views of employers or of 

employees within the last five years. Primarily 

means 50 percent or more of the arbitrator’s 

business or professional activities within the last 

five years. 

5The $100,000 threshold was chosen because 

FINRA recently raised the threshold for a single 

chair-qualified arbitrator in all cases to $100,000. 

Under the rule change, if the amount of a claim is 

more than $100,000, exclusive of interest and 

expenses, or is unspecified, or if the claim does not 

request money damages, the panel will consist of 

three arbitrators, unless the parties agree in writing 

to one arbitrator. See Exchange Act Release No. 

59340 (February 2, 2009), 74 FR 6335 (February 6, 

2009) (SR–FINRA–2008–047). 

6Rule 13800(d) (Simplified Arbitration— 

Discovery and Additional Evidence) provides for 

limited discovery in arbitrations involving $25,000 

or less, exclusive of interest and expenses. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

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

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–4 5

thereunder, because it establishes a due, 

fee, or other charge imposed by NYSE 

Amex. 

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. 

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–2009–25 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–2009–25. This 

file number should be included on the 

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

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

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

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

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

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, 

DC 20549, on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

Copies of the filing will also be available 

for inspection and copying at the 

principal office of the self-regulatory 

organization. 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–2009–25 and should be 

submitted on or before July 15, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.6

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–14723 Filed 6–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60132; File No. SR–FINRA– 

2009–015] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

Expedited Administration of 

Promissory Note Cases 

June 17, 2009. 

On April 7, 2009, the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. 

(‘‘FINRA’’) (f/k/a National Association 

of Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’), 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 

19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule 

change to the Code of Arbitration 

Procedure for Industry Disputes 

(‘‘Industry Code’’). The proposed rule 

change was published for comment in 

the Federal Register on May 14, 2009.3

The Commission received no comments 

on the proposed rule change. 

I. Description of the Proposal 

FINRA proposed to adopt Rule 13806 

of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for 

Industry Disputes (‘‘Industry Code’’), to 

establish procedures to expedite the 

administration of arbitrations in which 

a member’s only claim is that an 

associated person failed to pay money 

owed on a promissory note; and to 

amend Rules 13214 and 13600 of the 

Industry Code to make conforming 

changes. 

In order to proceed under proposed 

new Rule 13806, a claimant would not 

be permitted to include any additional 

allegations in the Statement of Claim. 

FINRA stated that, in the absence of 

additional allegations by members or 

associated persons, promissory note 

cases involve straightforward contracts 

with few documents being entered into 

evidence. The new procedures would 

streamline the process for promissory 

note cases and reduce expenses for the 

parties while maintaining the 

procedural safeguards in the Industry 

Code for the associated person against 

whom a member asserts a claim. 

Specifically, under the proposed 

procedures: 

• Parties would choose a single 

public arbitrator from the roster of 

arbitrators approved to hear statutory 

discrimination claims,4 unless an 

associated person files a counterclaim or 

third party claim of more than $100,000, 

exclusive of interest or expenses, or the 

counterclaim or third party claim is 

unspecified or does not request money 

damages.5 In FINRA’s view, the 

arbitrators on this roster would be 

especially suited to resolve these 

disputes because of the depth of their 

experience and their familiarity with 

employment law; 

• If the associated person does not 

file an answer, simplified discovery 

procedures would apply 6 and, 

regardless of the amount in controversy, 

the single arbitrator would render an 

award based on the pleadings and other 

materials submitted by the parties. The 

arbitrator would be paid an honorarium