Document ID: SEC-2010-1792-0001
Agency: sec
Document Type: Notice
Title: Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NYSE Amex LLC
Posted Date: 2010-11-24T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Notices]               
[Page 71777-71781]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24no10-143]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63337; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-104]

 
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing 
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Expanding the Delta 
Hedging Exemption Available for Equity Options Position Limits and 
Adopting a Delta Hedging Exemption From Certain Index Options Position 
Limits

November 18, 2010.
    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 November 5, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE 
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II 
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory 
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit 
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance 
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to (i) expand the delta hedging exemption 
available for equity options position limits and (ii) adopt a delta 
hedging exemption from certain index options position limits. The text 
of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the 
Commission's Public Reference Room, on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.sec.gov, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 these 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
I. Expansion of Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption
    On March 4, 2008,\3\ the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change 
with the Commission establishing an exemption from equity options 
position and exercise limits for positions held by Exchange members, 
member organizations and certain of their affiliates, that are ``delta 
neutral'' \4\ under a ``Permitted Pricing Model,'' \5\ subject to 
certain conditions (``Exemption''). The Exchange is proposing to amend 
certain of its rules to expand its exemption from equity options 
position and exercise limits and adopt a delta hedging exemption from 
certain index options position limits.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57502 (March 14, 
2008), 73 FR 15225 (March 21, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-18).
    \4\ The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in Rule 904, 
Commentary .10(a) as referring to an equity option position that is 
hedged, in accordance with a Permitted Pricing Model, by a position 
in the underlying security or one or more instruments relating to 
the underlying security, for the purpose of offsetting the risk that 
the value of the option position will change with incremental 
changes in the price of the security underlying the option position.
    \5\ Permitted Pricing Model is defined in Rule 904, Commentary 
.10(e).
    \6\ The amendments proposed herein are similar to changes 
approved for the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''). See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62190 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR 
31826 (June 4, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-021). See also Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 56970 (December 14, 2007), 72 FR 72428 
(December 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-099). The exemption was extended 
to certain customers whose accounts are carried by a member. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60555 (August 21, 2009), 74 FR 
43741 (August 27, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-039). This proposed rule 
filing is being done pursuant to an industry-wide initiative, under 
the auspices of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG''), to 
establish comparable delta-hedge exemption rules among exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' of a hedged 
equity option position is subject to the position limits under Rule 
904, Commentary .10, subject to the availability of other 
exemptions.\7\ Currently, the Exemption only is available for 
securities that directly underlie the applicable option

[[Page 71778]]

position. This means that with respect to options on exchange-traded 
funds (``ETF options''), index options overlying the same index on 
which the ETF is based currently cannot be combined with the ETF 
options to calculate a net delta for purposes of the Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' is 
defined in Rule 904, Commentary .10(c) as the net delta divided by 
the number of shares underlying the option contract. The term ``net 
delta'' is defined in the same rule to mean, at any time, the number 
of shares (either long or short) required to offset the risk that 
the value of an equity option position will change with incremental 
changes in the price of the security underlying the option position, 
as determined in accordance with a Permitted Pricing Model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many ETF options overlie exchange-traded funds that track the 
performance of an index. For example, options on Standard & Poor's 
Depositary Receipts (``SPY'') track the performance of the S&P 500 
index. Market participants often hedge SPY options with options on the 
S&P 500 Index (``SPX options'') or with other financial instruments 
based on the S&P 500 Index for risk management purposes. The Exchange 
believes that in order for eligible market participants to more fully 
benefit from the Exemption as it relates to ETF options, securities and 
other instruments that are based on the same underlying ETF or the same 
index on which the ETF is based should also be included in any 
determination of an ETF option position's net delta or whether the 
options position is hedged delta neutral.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ However, this would not include baskets of securities for 
purposes of the Exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to expand the Exemption by 
amending Rule 904, Commentary .10(a) to permit equity option positions 
for which the underlying security is an ETF that is based on the same 
index as an index option to be combined with an index option position 
for calculation of the delta-based equity hedge exemption. The proposed 
rule would allow financial products such as securities index options, 
index futures, and options on index futures to be included along with 
the ETF in an equity option's net delta calculation. So for example, 
the proposed rule would allow SPY options to be hedged not only with 
SPY shares, but with S&P 500 options, S&P 500 futures, options on S&P 
500 futures or any other instrument that tracks the performance of or 
is based on the S&P 500 index. This would be accomplished by including 
such positions with a related index option position in accordance with 
the Delta-Based Index Hedge Exemption rule proposed below.
    Index options and equity options (i.e., ETF options) that are 
eligible to be combined for computing a delta-based hedge exemption, 
along with all securities and/or other instruments that are based on or 
track the performance of the same underlying security or index, will be 
grouped and the net delta and options contract equivalent of the net 
delta will be calculated for each respective option class based on 
offsets realized from the grouping as a whole.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``net delta'' in 
Rule 904, Commentary .10(b) to mean, at any time, the number of shares 
and/or other units of trade \9\ (either long or short) required to 
offset the risk that the value of an equity option position will change 
with incremental changes in the price of the security underlying the 
option position, as determined in accordance with a Permitted Pricing 
Model. The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of the ``option 
contract equivalent of the net delta'' to mean the net delta divided by 
the number of shares that equate to one option contract on a delta 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Other units of trade'' would include, for example, options 
or futures contracts hedging the relevant option position. When 
determining whether an ETF option hedged with other instruments such 
as ETF or index options is delta neutral, the relative size of the 
ETF option when compared to the other product is taken into 
consideration. For example, SPX options are ten (10) times larger 
than SPY options thus 1 SPX delta is equivalent to .10 SPY deltas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Delta-Based Index Hedge Exemption

    Most index options traded on the Exchange are subject to position 
and exercise limits, as provided under Rules 904C(b) and 905C(c).\10\ 
Position limits are imposed, generally, to prevent the establishment of 
options positions that can be used or might create incentives to 
manipulate or disrupt the underlying market so as to benefit the holder 
of the options position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rules 904C(b) and 904C(c) provide position limits for Broad 
Stock Index Group Options and Stock Index Industry Group Options, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Index options are often used by market participants such as 
institutional investors to hedge large portfolios. Exchange rules 
include hedge exemptions to allow certain positions in index options in 
excess of the applicable standard position limit if hedged with an 
Exchange-approved qualified portfolio.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commentary .01-.03 to Rule 904C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that any limit on the ability of market 
participants to use index options to hedge their portfolios exposes 
market participants to unnecessary risk on the unhedged portion of 
their portfolios. The Exchange proposes to adopt a delta-based 
exemption from index option position and exercise limits that is 
substantially similar to the delta-based equity hedge exemption under 
Rule 904, Commentary .10. A delta-based index hedge exemption would 
provide market participants the ability to accumulate an unlimited 
number of index options contracts provided that such contracts are 
properly delta hedged in accordance with the requirements of the 
exemption.
    Proposed Exemption. The Exchange proposes to adopt an exemption 
from broad stock index group options position and exercise limits \12\ 
for positions held by members, member organizations and certain of 
their non-member affiliates that are ``delta neutral'' (as defined 
below) under a ``Permitted Pricing Model'' (as defined below), subject 
to certain conditions (``Index Exemption''). The Index Exemption under 
proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06 would also apply to Industry Index 
Options under proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Exchange Rule 905C establishes exercise limits for an index 
option at the same level as the index option's position limit under 
index options position limit rules, therefore no changes are 
proposed to Rule 905C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``delta neutral'' is defined in proposed Rule 904C, 
Commentary .06(a) as referring to an index option position that is 
hedged, in accordance with a Permitted Pricing Model, by a position in 
one or more correlated instruments for the purpose of offsetting the 
risk that the value of the option position will change with incremental 
changes in the value of the underlying index. Correlated instruments 
would be defined to mean securities and/or other instruments that track 
the performance of or are based on the same underlying index as the 
index underlying the option position. These definitions would allow 
financial products such as ETF options, index futures, options on index 
futures and ETFs that track the performance of or are based on the same 
underlying index to be included in an index option's net delta 
calculation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any index option position that is not delta neutral would be 
subject to position and exercise limits, subject to the availability of 
other exemptions. Only the ``options contract equivalent of the net 
delta'' of such position would be subject to the appropriate position 
limit.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06(b), the term 
``options contract equivalent of the net delta'' is defined as the 
net delta divided by units of trade that equate to one option 
contract on a delta basis, and the term ``net delta'' is defined as, 
at any time, the number of shares and/or other units of trade 
(either long or short) required to offset the risk that the value of 
an index option position will change with incremental changes in the 
value of the underlying index, as determined in accordance with a 
Permitted Pricing Model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, members and member organizations could not use the 
same positions in correlated instruments in connection with more than 
one hedge exemption. Therefore, a position in correlated instruments 
used as part of a delta hedging strategy could not also

[[Page 71779]]

serve as the basis for any other index hedge exemption.
    Permitted Pricing Model. Under the proposed rule, the calculation 
of the delta for any index option position, and the determination of 
whether a particular index option position is hedged delta neutral, 
must be made using a Permitted Pricing Model. A ``Permitted Pricing 
Model'' is defined in proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06(c) to have the 
same meaning as defined in Rule 904, Commentary .10(e), namely, (i) The 
pricing model maintained and operated by the Options Clearing 
Corporation (``OCC''); and the pricing models maintained and used by 
(ii) a member subject to consolidated supervision by the SEC pursuant 
to Appendix E of SEC Rule 15c3-1; (iii) a financial holding company 
(``FHC'') or a company treated as an FHC under the Bank Holding Company 
Act of 1956, or its affiliate subject to consolidated holding company 
group supervision; \15\ (iv) an SEC registered OTC derivatives dealer; 
\16\ and (v) a national bank.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The pricing model of an FHC or of an affiliate of an FHC 
would have to be consistent with: (i) The requirements of the Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Fed''), as amended 
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based 
adjustments to capital for market risk under capital requirements of 
the Fed, provided that the member or member organization or 
affiliate of a member or member organization relying on this 
exemption in connection with the use of such model is an entity that 
is part of such company's consolidated supervised holding company 
group; or (ii) the standards published by the Basel Committee on 
Banking Supervision, as amended from time to time and as implemented 
by such company's principal regulator, in connection with the 
calculation of risk-based deductions or adjustments to or allowances 
for the market risk capital requirements of such principal regulator 
applicable to such company--where ``principal regulator'' means a 
member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision that is the 
home country consolidated supervisor of such company--provided that 
the member or member organization or affiliate of a member or member 
organization relying on this exemption in connection with the use of 
such model is an entity that is part of such company's consolidated 
supervised holding company group. See subparagraph (c) of proposed 
Rule 904C, Commentary .06, which incorporates Rule 904, Commentary 
.10(e).
    \16\ The pricing model of an SEC registered OTC derivatives 
dealer would have to be consistent with the requirements of Appendix 
F to SEC Rule 15c3-1 and SEC Rule 15c3-4 under the Act, as amended 
from time to time, in connection with the calculation of risk-based 
deductions from capital for market risk thereunder. Only an OTC 
derivatives dealer and no other affiliated entity (including a 
member or member organization) would be able to rely on this part of 
the Exemption. See subparagraph (c) of proposed Rule 904C, 
Commentary .06, which incorporates Rule 904, Commentary .10(e).
    \17\ The pricing model of a national bank would have to be 
consistent with the requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency, as amended from time to time, in connection with the 
calculation of risk-based adjustments to capital for market risk 
under capital requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency. Only a national bank and no other affiliated entity 
(including a member or member organization) would be able to rely on 
this part of the Exemption. See subparagraph (c) of proposed Rule 
904C, Commentary .06, which incorporates Rule 904, Commentary 
.10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aggregation of Accounts. Members, member organizations and non-
member affiliates relying on the Index Exemption would be required to 
ensure that the Permitted Pricing Model is applied to all positions in 
correlated instruments hedging the relevant option position that are 
owned or controlled by the member, member organization or their non-
member affiliates.
    However, the net delta of an index option position held by an 
entity entitled to rely on the Index Exemption, or by a separate and 
distinct trading unit of such entity, may be calculated without regard 
to positions in correlated instruments held by an affiliated entity or 
by another trading unit within the same entity, provided that: (i) The 
entity demonstrates to the Exchange's satisfaction that no control 
relationship, as defined in Rule 904, Commentary .08, exists between 
such affiliates or trading units, and (ii) the entity has provided the 
Exchange written notice in advance that it intends to be considered 
separate and distinct from any affiliate, or, as applicable, which 
trading units within the entity are to be considered separate and 
distinct from each other for purposes of the Index Exemption.\18\ The 
Exchange has set forth in Regulatory Circular Reg 2008-14 the 
conditions under which it will deem no control relationship to exist 
between affiliated broker-dealers and between separate and distinct 
trading units within the same broker-dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See subparagraph (d) of proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any member, member organization or non-member affiliate relying on 
the Index Exemption must designate, by prior written notice to the 
Exchange, each trading unit or entity whose options positions are 
required by Exchange rules to be aggregated with the options positions 
of such member, member organization or non-member affiliate relying on 
the Index Exemption for purposes of compliance with Exchange position 
or exercise limits.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obligations of Members, Member Organizations and Affiliates. Any 
member or member organization relying on the Index Exemption would be 
required to provide a written certification to the Exchange that it is 
using a Permitted Pricing Model as defined in the rule for purposes of 
the Index Exemption. In addition, by such reliance, such member or 
member organization would authorize any other person carrying for such 
member or member organization an account including, or with whom such 
member or member organization has entered into, a position in a 
correlated instrument hedging the relevant option position to provide 
to the Exchange or OCC such information regarding such account or 
position as the Exchange or OCC may request as part of the Exchange's 
confirmation or verification of the accuracy of any net delta 
calculation under this exemption.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See subparagraph (e) of proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The index option positions of a non-member affiliate relying on the 
Index Exemption must be carried by a member or member organization with 
which it is affiliated. A member or member organization carrying an 
account that includes an index option position for a non-member 
affiliate that intends to rely on the Index Exemption would be required 
to obtain from such non-member affiliate a written certification that 
it is using a Permitted Pricing Model as defined in the rule for 
purposes of the index Exemption.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition, the member or member organization would be 
required to obtain from such non-member affiliate a written 
statement confirming that such non-member affiliate: (a) Is relying 
on the Index Exemption; (b) will use only a Permitted Pricing Model 
for purposes of calculating the net delta of its option positions 
for purposes of the Index Exemption; (c) will promptly notify the 
member or member organization if it ceases to rely on the Index 
Exemption; (d) authorizes the member or member organization to 
provide to the Exchange or the OCC such information regarding 
positions of the non-member affiliate as the Exchange or OCC may 
request as part of the Exchange's confirmation or verification of 
the accuracy of any net delta calculation under the Index Exemption; 
and (e) if the non-member affiliate is using the OCC Model, has duly 
executed and delivered to the Exchange such documents as the 
Exchange may require to be executed and delivered to the Exchange as 
a condition to reliance on the Exemption. See subparagraph (e)(3) of 
proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting. Under proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06(f), each member 
or member organization relying on the Index Exemption would be required 
to report, in accordance with Rule 906,\22\ (i) all index option 
positions (including those that are delta neutral) that are reportable 
thereunder, and (ii) on its own behalf or on behalf of a designated 
aggregation unit pursuant to Rule 904C, Commentary .06(d), for each 
such account that holds an index option position subject to the Index 
Exemption in excess of the levels specified in Rule

[[Page 71780]]

904C(b) (and Rule 904C(c), in the case of Stock Index Industry Group 
Options) the net delta and the options contract equivalent of the net 
delta of such position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Exchange Rule 906 requires, among other things, that 
members and member organizations report to the Exchange aggregate 
long or short positions on the same side of the market of 200 or 
more contracts of any single class of options contracts dealt in on 
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Records. Under proposed Rule 904C, Commentary .06(g), each member 
or member organization relying on the Index Exemption would be required 
to (i) retain, and would be required to undertake reasonable efforts to 
ensure that any non-member affiliate of the member or member 
organization relying on the Index Exemption retains, a list of the 
options, securities and other instruments underlying each options 
position net delta calculation reported to the Exchange hereunder, and 
(ii) produce such information to the Exchange upon request.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A member or member organization would be authorized to 
report position information of its non-member affiliate pursuant to 
the written statement required under proposed Rule 904C, Commentary 
.06(e)(3)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliance on Federal Oversight. As provided under proposed Rule 
904C, Commentary .06(c), a Permitted Pricing Model includes proprietary 
pricing models used by members, member organizations and affiliates 
that have been approved by the SEC, the Fed or another federal 
financial regulator. In adopting the proposed Index Exemption the 
Exchange would be relying upon the rigorous approval processes and 
ongoing oversight of a federal financial regulator. The Exchange notes 
that it would not be under any obligation to verify whether a member's, 
member organization's or non-member affiliate's use of a proprietary 
pricing model is appropriate or yielding accurate results.
    The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule 
change in a regulatory circular to be published no later than 60 days 
after Commission approval. The effective date shall be no later than 30 
days after publication of the regulatory circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\24\ 
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 
\25\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and 
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles 
of trade, 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 Exchange believes that allowing 
correlated instruments to be included in the calculation of an equity 
option's net delta would enable eligible market participants to more 
fully realize the benefit of the delta based equity hedge exemption. 
The proposed delta-based index hedge exemption would be substantially 
similar to the delta-based equity hedge exemption under Rule 904, 
Commentary .10. Also, the Commission has previously stated its support 
for recognizing options positions hedged on a delta neutral basis as 
properly exempted from positions limits.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (October 23, 
1998), 63 FR 59362, 59380 (November 3, 1998) (adopting rules 
relating to OTC Derivatives Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly 
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose 
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 
days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the 
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not 
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\29\ 
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \30\ permits the Commission to designate 
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of 
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the 
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes 
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the 
protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes 
that it has approved a substantially similar proposal filed by the 
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,\31\ and therefore 
believes that no significant purpose is served by a 30-day operative 
delay. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule 
change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to 
the Commission written notice of its 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 this requirement.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62190 (May 27, 
2010), 75 FR 31826 (June 4, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-21). See also 
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62504 (July 15, 2010), 75 FR 
42797 (July 22, 2010) (SR-PHLX-2010-93); and 63077 (October 12, 
2010), 75 FR 63870 (October 18, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-97).
    \32\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative 
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on 
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule 
change the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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 rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-104 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-2010-104. 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

[[Page 71781]]

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 Web site viewing and printing 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-2010-104 and should 
be submitted on or before December 15, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29592 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P