Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Market-Maker Orders, 41953-41955 [E9-19893]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Notices
entities that are effectively restricted
from providing auditing services.’’ 9
Both commenters disagreed with the
Board’s response.
The Commission believes the Board
appropriately explained its rationale for
the difference in the Form 2 and Form
3 reporting requirements and believes
that it is not unreasonable for the Board
to request this information in the
current manner in which it is requested.
6. Requests for Additional
Implementation Guidance
As noted in the above discussion, the
Commission has considered the
concerns and issues raised by
commenters and appreciates the
feedback. While the Commission
believes the aforementioned matters are
not unreasonable requirements, the
Commission does encourage the Board
to monitor implementation of its annual
and special reporting rules and to be
open to issuing timely implementation
guidance as necessary as to these and
the other comments raised, as was done
with the Board’s implementation of its
registration rules.10
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
B. Recommendation as to the Annual
Fee
Section 102(f) of the Act requires the
Board to ‘‘assess and collect a
registration fee and an annual fee from
each registered firm in amounts that are
sufficient to recover the Board’s costs of
processing and reviewing applications
and annual reports.’’ 11 The PCAOB has
collected registration fees from every
firm that has registered with the Board
since 2003. However, the Board has not
assessed or collected annual fees from
any registered firms.
In our order approving the PCAOB’s
budget and accounting support fee for
2008, the Commission directed the
PCAOB to, among other things, analyze
historical and planned expenditures
related to the review and processing of
registrations and annual reports of
public accounting firms.12 We
understand from this analysis that there
are unrecovered historical costs that
need to be collected from registered
firms. In addition, the Board needs to
determine the amount of current and
future costs of reviewing and processing
registrations and annual reports and
how and over what period to recover
those costs. These matters also are
impacted due to changes to the Board’s
registration profile that may occur as a
result of the requirement for auditors of
non-public broker dealers to be
registered with the Board for fiscal
periods ending on or after January 1,
2009.
The Commission recommends that, in
setting its annual fee under PCAOB Rule
2202, Annual Fee, the Board recover all
of the unrecovered historical costs
associated with the Board’s review and
processing of registration applications
in the first annual fee billed to
registered public accounting firms and
that these costs be recovered only from
registered public accounting firms that
were registered prior to January 1, 2009,
and that such bill be separately
itemized. In addition, for consistency
and to aid transparency, the
Commission recommends that future
costs associated with reviewing and
processing registration applications,
processing annual and special reporting,
and related system maintenance and
development costs be recovered over a
time period that is consistent with the
time period the PCAOB uses for its
financial statement purposes to
depreciate long-lived assets similar to
that used by the PCAOB in processing
registration applications and annual and
special reports.
IV. Conclusion
On the basis of the foregoing, the
Commission finds that the proposed
PCAOB rules on annual and special
reporting by registered public
accounting firms are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the
securities laws and are necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for
the protection of investors.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 107 of the Act and Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that
proposed PCAOB Rules on Annual and
Special Reporting by Registered Public
Accounting Firms (File No. PCAOB–
2008–04) be and hereby are approved.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–19838 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
16:53 Aug 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–60491; File No. SR–CBOE–
2009–057]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change Related to
Market-Maker Orders
August 12, 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 August
10, 2009, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’
or ‘‘CBOE’’) 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 is proposing to
eliminate an order identification rule for
Market-Maker and Specialist orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange’s Web site
(https://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the
Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the
Commission.
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
Rule 6.73(d) currently provides that a
Floor Broker holding an order for the
account of a Market-Maker or Specialist
shall verbally identify the order as such
9 See PCAOB Release No. 2008–004, June 10,
2008 [page 22].
10 See, e.g., https://www.pcaob.org/Registration/
Registration_FAQ.pdf; and https://www.pcaob.org/
Registration/2004-03-11_FAQ.pdf.
11 15 U.S.C. 7212(f).
12 See Release No. 34–56986 (December 18, 2007).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
41953
1 15
2 17
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
19AUN1
41954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
in open outcry prior to requesting a
quote. The rule was originally adopted
in 2002 to ensure that Market-Maker
and Specialist orders are not
inadvertently represented as public
customer orders, which receive
preferential treatment in certain
instances under CBOE Rules.3
When the rule was adopted, CBOE
noted that orders submitted
electronically are required to contain an
account origin code. An origin code
identifies the type of order such that
CBOE can route it to the proper
location. For example, ‘‘C’’ orders
represent public customer orders. At
that time, ‘‘C’’ orders were eligible for
routing to the Retail Automatic
Execution System (‘‘RAES’’), which
CBOE no longer utilizes. In addition,
only ‘‘C’’ orders were eligible for entry
into the limit order book when RAES
was utilized, and public customer
orders resting in the limit order book
had priority over other bids and offers
represented in the trading crowd at the
same price. ‘‘M’’ orders, on the other
hand, indicate the order emanates from
a CBOE Market-Maker. ‘‘M’’ orders were
not eligible for routing to RAES or for
entry into the limit order book when
RAES was in use and instead were
routed to a crowd printer.4 Origin codes
also assisted, and continue to assist,
CBOE and The Options Clearing
Corporation in the clearing of trades.
The 2002 rule change simply
extended the origin code requirement to
the open outcry environment by
requiring Market-Maker and Specialist
orders to be verbally identified as such.
The premise was that requiring the
identification of the orders as MarketMaker or Specialist orders would reduce
the likelihood that such orders would be
inadvertently treated as public customer
orders.
The Exchange is proposing to
eliminate this requirement as it is
superfluous and unnecessary. First, as
indicated above, the requirement to
verbally identify Market-Maker and
Specialist orders was introduced as an
added requirement beyond the order
marking requirement so that such orders
would not be inadvertently represented
as public customer orders on the RAES
trading platform. However, the
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46102
(June 21, 2002), 67 FR 43692 (June 28, 2002) (SR–
CBOE–2002–33) (immediately effective rule change
relating to the identification of Market-Maker and
Specialist orders).
4 When RAES was utilized, the Exchange had also
determined that clearing firm and broker-dealer
orders utilizing origin codes ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘B’’ (but not
Market-Makers or Specialist orders) were allowed to
access RAES for automatic executions, but such
broker-dealer orders could not be placed in the
limit order book.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:53 Aug 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
preferential treatment afforded to public
customer orders was system enforced
through the order marking requirement
and, therefore, the requirement to
verbally identify such orders was
superfluous and unnecessary. Second,
as indicated above, the Exchange no
longer utilizes the RAES trading
platform for which the order
identification procedure was
introduced. Instead CBOE utilizes the
Hybrid Trading System, which permits
public customer, Market-Maker,
Specialist and other types of brokerdealer orders to be routed for automatic
execution and to rest in a consolidated
electronic book. Public customer orders
resting in the consolidated electronic
book do generally continue to have
priority over other bids and offers at the
same price when utilizing the Hybrid
Trading System, however, this priority
is system enforced for electronic
transactions. For open outcry
transactions, members are able to
distinguish public customer orders in
the consolidated electronic book
because they are separately displayed
through a public customer limit order
book. Thus, the Market-Maker and
Specialist verbal order identification
requirement continues to be superfluous
and unnecessary for the Hybrid Trading
System. Third, the Exchange also notes
that the CBOE Rules do not require the
verbal identification of other order
types, such as clearing firm and brokerdealer orders, in open outcry and the
Exchange no longer believes it is
necessary to single out and verbally
identify Market-Maker and Specialist
orders in open outcry either.
The Exchange notes that this rule
change simply eliminates the
requirement to verbally identify MarketMaker and Specialist orders in open
outcry. Orders will continue to be
required to contain an account origin
code that identifies the type of order
(e.g., an origin code of ‘‘M’’ is still used
for Market-Maker orders).
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act 5
and the rules and regulations
thereunder and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.6
Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirements that
the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove
5 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
U.S.C. 78f(b).
7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
6 15
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, by
proposing to eliminate Rule 6.73(d) and
its requirement to verbally identify
Market-Maker and Specialist orders,
which the Exchange as [sic] determined
to be superfluous and unnecessary, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule
change should serve to remove an
unnecessary burden and simplify the
administration of its rules, while also
maintaining other existing procedures
that would reduce the likelihood that
such orders would be inadvertently
treated as public customer orders.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
CBOE does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition 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 self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission
will:
(A) By order approve such 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 (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Notices
Number SR–CBOE–2009–057 on the
subject line.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Paper Comments
[Release No. 34–60496; File No. PCAOB–
2008–05]
• 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–CBOE–2009–057. 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 (https://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 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–CBOE–2009–057 and
should be submitted on or before
September 9, 2009.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.8
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–19893 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
8 17
16:53 Aug 18, 2009
August 13, 2009.
I. Introduction
On August 4, 2008, the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board
(the ‘‘Board’’ or the ‘‘PCAOB’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’)
proposed rules (File No. PCAOB–2008–
05) on succeeding to the status of a
predecessor firm, pursuant to Section
107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(the ‘‘Act’’). Notice of the proposed rules
was published in the Federal Register
on June 18, 2009.1 The Commission did
not receive any comment letters relating
to this rule proposal. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is
granting approval of the proposed rules.
II. Description
On July 28, 2008, the Board adopted
rules and submitted to the Commission
a rule proposal consisting of two new
rules (PCAOB Rules 2108–2109) and a
new form, Form 4, related to succeeding
to the registration status of a
predecessor firm. The proposed rules
allow, in certain circumstances, a
registered public accounting firm’s
registration status to continue with a
firm that survives a merger or other
change in the registered firm’s legal
form. If approved by the Commission,
the rules on succession reporting would
take effect 60 days after Commission
approval. For firms that had a change in
legal form, or that resulted from an
acquisition or combination, in the
period between the firm’s registration
and the effective date of the rules, those
firms will be required to report the
change on Form 4 within 14 days after
the Commission’s approval date.
The proposed rules provide the
opportunity for continuity of a firm’s
registration in two categories: (1)
changes related to a firm’s legal form of
organization or jurisdiction; and (2)
transactions in which a registered firm
is acquired by an unregistered entity or
combines with other entities to form a
new legal entity. The events to which
the rules apply are events for which a
firm plans, not unanticipated events to
which a firm reacts. The proposed rules
1 See Release No. 34–60108 (June 12, 2009); 74 FR
29005 (June 18, 2009).
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board; Order Approving Proposed
Rules on Succeeding to the Status of
a Predecessor Firm
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41955
are designed to facilitate a firm’s ability
to factor into its planning, and to predict
with certainty, whether and how
continuity of registration can be
maintained.
The proposed rules set a deadline of
14 days for a firm to file a report on
Form 4, and require certain information
and representations in the form. If the
firm files the form within the required
timeframe, provides the required
representations, and certifies that all
required information is included, then
continuity of registration is automatic,
without the need for separate Board
action. The rules and Form 4 also build
in safeguards to ensure that the Form 1
registration process is not circumvented
in circumstances where that process is
more appropriate than Form 4
succession.
III. Discussion
The Commission did not receive any
comment letters relating to the rule
proposal.
IV. Conclusion
The Commission finds that the
proposed PCAOB rules on succeeding to
the registration status of a predecessor
firm are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the
securities laws and are necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for
the protection of investors.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 107 of the Act and Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that
proposed PCAOB Rules on Succeeding
to the Registration Status of a
Predecessor Firm (File No. PCAOB–
2008–05) be and hereby are approved.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–19839 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–60492; File No. SR–
NASDAQ–2009–074]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Modify Fees
for Members Using the NASDAQ
Market Center
August 12, 2009.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41953-41955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-60491; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-057]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Market-Maker Orders
August 12, 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 August 10, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 is proposing to eliminate an order identification rule
for Market-Maker and Specialist orders. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (https://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
Rule 6.73(d) currently provides that a Floor Broker holding an
order for the account of a Market-Maker or Specialist shall verbally
identify the order as such
[[Page 41954]]
in open outcry prior to requesting a quote. The rule was originally
adopted in 2002 to ensure that Market-Maker and Specialist orders are
not inadvertently represented as public customer orders, which receive
preferential treatment in certain instances under CBOE Rules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46102 (June 21,
2002), 67 FR 43692 (June 28, 2002) (SR-CBOE-2002-33) (immediately
effective rule change relating to the identification of Market-Maker
and Specialist orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the rule was adopted, CBOE noted that orders submitted
electronically are required to contain an account origin code. An
origin code identifies the type of order such that CBOE can route it to
the proper location. For example, ``C'' orders represent public
customer orders. At that time, ``C'' orders were eligible for routing
to the Retail Automatic Execution System (``RAES''), which CBOE no
longer utilizes. In addition, only ``C'' orders were eligible for entry
into the limit order book when RAES was utilized, and public customer
orders resting in the limit order book had priority over other bids and
offers represented in the trading crowd at the same price. ``M''
orders, on the other hand, indicate the order emanates from a CBOE
Market-Maker. ``M'' orders were not eligible for routing to RAES or for
entry into the limit order book when RAES was in use and instead were
routed to a crowd printer.\4\ Origin codes also assisted, and continue
to assist, CBOE and The Options Clearing Corporation in the clearing of
trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ When RAES was utilized, the Exchange had also determined
that clearing firm and broker-dealer orders utilizing origin codes
``F'' and ``B'' (but not Market-Makers or Specialist orders) were
allowed to access RAES for automatic executions, but such broker-
dealer orders could not be placed in the limit order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2002 rule change simply extended the origin code requirement to
the open outcry environment by requiring Market-Maker and Specialist
orders to be verbally identified as such. The premise was that
requiring the identification of the orders as Market-Maker or
Specialist orders would reduce the likelihood that such orders would be
inadvertently treated as public customer orders.
The Exchange is proposing to eliminate this requirement as it is
superfluous and unnecessary. First, as indicated above, the requirement
to verbally identify Market-Maker and Specialist orders was introduced
as an added requirement beyond the order marking requirement so that
such orders would not be inadvertently represented as public customer
orders on the RAES trading platform. However, the preferential
treatment afforded to public customer orders was system enforced
through the order marking requirement and, therefore, the requirement
to verbally identify such orders was superfluous and unnecessary.
Second, as indicated above, the Exchange no longer utilizes the RAES
trading platform for which the order identification procedure was
introduced. Instead CBOE utilizes the Hybrid Trading System, which
permits public customer, Market-Maker, Specialist and other types of
broker-dealer orders to be routed for automatic execution and to rest
in a consolidated electronic book. Public customer orders resting in
the consolidated electronic book do generally continue to have priority
over other bids and offers at the same price when utilizing the Hybrid
Trading System, however, this priority is system enforced for
electronic transactions. For open outcry transactions, members are able
to distinguish public customer orders in the consolidated electronic
book because they are separately displayed through a public customer
limit order book. Thus, the Market-Maker and Specialist verbal order
identification requirement continues to be superfluous and unnecessary
for the Hybrid Trading System. Third, the Exchange also notes that the
CBOE Rules do not require the verbal identification of other order
types, such as clearing firm and broker-dealer orders, in open outcry
and the Exchange no longer believes it is necessary to single out and
verbally identify Market-Maker and Specialist orders in open outcry
either.
The Exchange notes that this rule change simply eliminates the
requirement to verbally identify Market-Maker and Specialist orders in
open outcry. Orders will continue to be required to contain an account
origin code that identifies the type of order (e.g., an origin code of
``M'' is still used for Market-Maker orders).
2. Statutory Basis
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. In particular, by proposing to eliminate Rule
6.73(d) and its requirement to verbally identify Market-Maker and
Specialist orders, which the Exchange as [sic] determined to be
superfluous and unnecessary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change should serve to remove an unnecessary burden and simplify the
administration of its rules, while also maintaining other existing
procedures that would reduce the likelihood that such orders would be
inadvertently treated as public customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition 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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve such 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File
[[Page 41955]]
Number SR-CBOE-2009-057 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-CBOE-2009-057. 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 (https://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 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-CBOE-2009-057 and should be
submitted on or before September 9, 2009.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19893 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
