[Federal Register: July 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 38110-38115]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jy07-93]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-56017; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-21]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No.
1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
to Amendment No. 3 Thereto Relating to Rule 92 (Limitations on Members'
Trading Because of Customers' Orders)
July 5, 2007.
I. Introduction
On February 23, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 92, Limitations on Members'
Trading Because of Customers' Orders, in order to harmonize it with
similar rules of NASD and to address changes to the marketplace because
of the implementation of NYSE's Hybrid Market and Regulation NMS
(``Reg. NMS''). On May 22, 2007, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on May 31, 2007.\3\ The Commission
received two comment letters on the proposal.\4\ On July 3, 2007, NYSE
responded to the comments \5\ and, on July 5, 2007, filed Amendment No.
[[Page 38111]]
3 to the proposed rule change.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule
change, grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 3, and solicits
comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55804 (May 23,
2007), 72 FR 30410.
\4\ See letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Ann Vlcek, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
dated June 22, 2007 (``SIFMA Letter'') and from Bret Engelkemier,
Managing Director, Head of Equity Trading, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., dated June 21, 2007 (``CGMI Letter'').
\5\ See letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, NYSE, dated July 3, 2007 (``NYSE
Response'').
\6\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 on July 3, 2007 and
subsequently withdrew it on July 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
Riskless Principal Transactions
NYSE Rule 92 generally prohibits members or member organizations
from trading on a proprietary basis ahead of, or along with, customer
orders that are executable at the same price as the proprietary order.
Currently, the rule contains several exceptions that make it
permissible for a member or member organization to enter a proprietary
order while representing a customer order that could be executed at the
same price, so long as it is not for an account of an individual
investor and the customer has provided express permission (``Rule 92(b)
proprietary order'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In general, these are transactions in which the member or
member organization is: (1) Liquidating a position held in a
proprietary facilitation account and the customer's order is for
10,000 shares or more; (2) creating a bona fide hedge; (3) modifying
an existing hedge; or (4) engaging in a bona fide arbitrage or risk
arbitrage transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to add a new subsection to Rule 92 that would
permit riskless transactions for the purpose of facilitating the
execution, on a riskless principal basis, of one or more customer
orders. The proposed rule defines a riskless principal transaction as
one in which a member or member organization, after having received one
or more orders to buy (sell) a security, purchases (sells) the security
as principal at the same price to satisfy the order(s) to buy (sell).
Under the proposed rule, the member would be required to give the
customer the same price it received, exclusive of any markup or
markdown, commission or commission equivalent, or other fee.
The Exchange proposes adopting the underlying order requirements of
the NASD's Manning Rule \8\ for riskless principal transactions at the
Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes that a riskless principal
transaction can be effected on behalf of any customer order, regardless
of whether from an institutional account or an individual investor.
Further requirements for proposed riskless principal transactions
include that the receipt time reference for the underlying order would
have to be before the execution report time reference of the riskless
principal transaction. Within 60 seconds of receiving an execution
report from NYSE on the riskless principal transaction, members or
member organizations would be required to allocate to the accounts
represented in the riskless principal transaction the same price at
which the order was executed on NYSE, exclusive of any markup or
markdown, commission equivalent, or other fee. In addition, under the
proposed amendment, firms would be permitted to aggregate only orders
whose order types and instructions (including tick restrictions) permit
such aggregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NASD IM 2110-2 and Rule 2111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms would need to disclose to customers the method by which the
firm would allocate the shares bought or sold in the riskless principal
transaction (e.g., strict time priority, precedence based on size,
etc.), and would be required to allocate shares in accordance with that
method. Such method must be fair and reasonable, be consistently
applied, and not unfairly discriminate against any particular class of
accounts or types of orders. The Exchange would not require a specific
allocation methodology, but would require that the chosen method be
adequately disclosed to customers and be consistent with rules
governing parity of orders.
The Exchange would require member organizations to keep certain
books and records in connection with riskless principal transactions.
In particular, when executing riskless principal transactions, firms
would be required to submit order execution reports to the Exchange's
Front End Systemic Capture (``FESC'') database linking the execution of
the riskless principal order on the Exchange to the specific underlying
orders. The information that would be provided must be sufficient for
both member firms and the Exchange to reconstruct in a time-sequenced
manner all orders, including allocations to the underlying orders, with
respect to which a member organization is claiming the riskless
principal exception.
Similar to the Manning Rule, in allocating riskless principal
transactions, if the riskless principal transaction includes Rule 92(b)
proprietary orders, such proprietary orders must yield to orders from
customers that either have not or cannot consent (for example, an
individual investor with an order of less than 10,000 shares) (``non-
consenting customer'') and to orders from customers that have consented
to trade along with Rule 92(b) proprietary orders until the non-
consenting customers are filled. At that point, the Rule 92(b)
proprietary order can receive an allocation along side any remaining
customer orders that have consented to trade along with the Rule 92(b)
proprietary order. In allocating such orders, member organizations must
follow allocation methodologies that have been disclosed pursuant to
proposed Rules 92(b) and 92(c)(5).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Consent Under Rule 92(b)
The Exchange proposes to modify the consent requirement of NYSE
Rule 92(b) to eliminate the current order-by-order consent requirement
and instead provide that customers may give ``blanket'' affirmative
written consent for a member firm to trade along provided that: (i) The
customer has received adequate prior affirmative notice of the fact
that the member or member organization may trade along with its orders,
including a disclosure of the method by which the member organization
will allocate shares to the customer's order and a disclosure relating
to the allocation methodology for riskless principal transactions that
include both a Rule 92(b) proprietary order and an order from a
customer that has not consented to trade along with a Rule 92(b)
proprietary order; (ii) the customer affirmatively consents prior to
such trading by the member or member organization; and (iii) the member
or member organization's trading along is permitted under one of the
exceptions contained in Rule 92.
The Exchange proposes that member organizations can document such
affirmative consent either by: (i) A signed writing from the customer
that acknowledges the disclosures, including that a customer can opt-
out on an order-by-order basis, and provides consent; or (ii)
documenting consent that was provided orally, provided that written
disclosures were provided to the customer before obtaining the oral
consent and the member organization provides written notice to the
customer documenting that oral consent. Once a customer has provided
affirmative written consent and so long as firms continue to provide
written disclosures on a periodic basis, member organizations will not
need to renew such affirmative consent.
The Exchange further proposes expanding the class of investors that
may consent to a Rule 92(b) proprietary order. In order to harmonize
Rule 92 with the Manning Rule, the Exchange proposes amending the class
of investors that can consent to a member or member organization
trading along with a customer order to include all institutional
investors, regardless of the
[[Page 38112]]
size of the order, and individual investors with orders of 10,000
shares or more, unless such orders are less than $100,000 in value. To
ensure consistency, the Exchange proposes to incorporate, for purposes
of Rule 92 only, NASD's definition of an ``institutional account,''
\10\ and therefore proposes adding that definition to the supplementary
material to Rule 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See NASD Rule 3110(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers would retain the ability to ``opt-out'' on a trade-by-
trade basis or to modify the instructions obtained under blanket
consent, since the customer always has the option to submit an order
with an instruction that the member or member organization not trade
along or alter the terms for trading along with the order. The Exchange
would require members and member organizations to periodically disclose
this to customers as well.
Once a customer provides such ``blanket'' consent, a member or
member organization may trade on a proprietary basis along with a
customer order that is executable at the same price as a proprietary
order that meets the exceptions set forth in Rule 92(b). A member or
member organization may seek to include a Rule 92(b) proprietary order
with a proposed Rule 92(c) riskless principal order. In such case, even
though a single order is transmitted to the Exchange, the order would
include both riskless and risk elements, and therefore would no longer
be a pure riskless principal transaction. For purposes of parity,
Exchange systems will recognize the riskless principal order as an
agency order, regardless of whether the order includes any Rule 92(b)
proprietary orders.
Exemption for Reg. NMS-Compliant Intermarket Sweep Orders
The Exchange proposes amending Rule 92 to add an exemption so that,
when facilitating a customer order that would otherwise require the
firm to either violate Rule 92 or trade through protected quotations,
member organizations can comply with their Reg. NMS obligation without
also violating Rule 92. Under the current rule, if a member
organization is required to route intermarket sweep orders as principal
to execute against the full displayed size of any protected quotation
in a security (``ISO''), for example, when facilitating a customer
order at a price inferior to the national best bid or offer or other
protected quotations and in compliance with Rules 600(b)(30)(ii) and
611(b)(6) of Reg. NMS,\11\ the ISO could violate Rule 92 by trading
ahead of or along with open customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30)(ii) and 17 CFR 242.611(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed exemption provides that, when routing ISOs, the member
organization must yield its principal executions to any open customer
orders that are required to be protected by Rule 92 and capable of
accepting the fill. As defined in Rule 92(a), customer orders that are
required to be protected are those open customer orders that are known
to the member organization before entry of the ISO. The proposed
exemption would require that if a firm executes an ISO to facilitate a
customer order at a price inferior to one or more protected quotations,
that customer must consent to not receiving the better price obtained
by the ISO(s) or the firm must yield its principal execution to that
customer. In addition, the Exchange further proposes adopting the
definitions of Reg. NMS in connection with the terms ``protected
quotation'' and ``intermarket sweep order.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(7) and (30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment No. 3
On July 5, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed
rule change. In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange amended proposed Rule
92(c)(4) to clarify that the inclusion of a Rule 92(b) proprietary
order in the riskless principal transaction does not alter the
allocation rights of customers that consented to trade along with a
Rule 92(b) proprietary order. Therefore, when allocating a riskless
principal transaction, the member firm would have to yield to all
customers until any non-consenting customer orders have been filled,
and only then could the member firm trade along with any remaining
customer orders that have provided consent pursuant to Rule 92(b). The
Exchange also amended proposed Rule 92(d)(5) to clarify that a member
firm must yield the executions of Reg. NMS-compliant ISOs to open
customer orders except the customer order that the ISO was sent to
facilitate, if that customer has consented to not receiving the better
prices obtained by the ISO.
In addition, because it recognized that the proposed rule might
require member organizations to make certain changes to their trading
and order management systems, in Amendment No. 3, the Exchange proposed
to delay the operative date of proposed NYSE Rule 92(c)(3), which
requires member firms to provide batched end-of-day allocation
reporting for riskless principal transactions, and the requirement that
member firms use the riskless principal account type indicator, until
January 16, 2008. Before that date, the Exchange stated that it would
work with the member organizations to develop and implement the
necessary changes to firms' systems and FESC to accommodate the
enhanced reporting requirements contained in the proposed rule.
However, the Exchange would require, as of the date that each firm
implements riskless principal routing, that the member firm have in
place systems and controls that allow them to easily match and tie
riskless principal execution on the Exchange to the underlying orders.
Finally, the Exchange recognized that the process of obtaining and
documenting affirmative customer consent under the proposed amendments
to Rule 92(b) will not be instantaneous, and therefore proposed that
the member firms would have until September 30, 2007 to obtain
documentation of affirmative consent.
III. Summary of Comments and NYSE Response
The Commission received two comments on the proposal. The
commenters generally supported the proposal but expressed concern over
several requirements it would impose on members and member
organizations. Instead of requiring member firms to obtain affirmative
blanket consent to trade along with a customer's orders, the commenters
believed that negative consent with affirmative disclosure for both
institutional and individual customers would better align the
Exchange's regulatory requirements with today's market conditions while
also more effectively mitigating the administrative and recordkeeping
burdens associated with providing customers with adequate
disclosures.\13\ One commenter noted that the cost to firms to gather
affirmative blanket consent likely would negate the benefit of not
having to obtain order-by-order consent, as the rule requires
today.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ SIFMA Letter, supra note 4, at 2; see also CGMI Letter,
supra note 4, at 3.
\14\ SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange did not agree with the commenters that negative
consent is appropriate for trading along with customer orders.\15\ The
Exchange noted that it must strike a balance between investor
protection and the imposition of unnecessary burdens on member
organizations by its rules. The Exchange believed that the proposal
strikes the correct balance by requiring member firms to affirmatively
consent to being
[[Page 38113]]
traded along with by member firms and relieving member firms of the
administrative burdens of order-by-order consent.\16\ In addition, the
Exchange recognized that obtaining affirmative consent is not an
instantaneous process, and therefore proposed to give member firms
until September 30, 2007 to obtain documentation of affirmative
consent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NYSE Response, supra note 5, at 3.
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.; see also Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters expressed concern that the reporting requirements
applicable to a riskless principal transaction under Rule 92 are
inconsistent with NASD's riskless principal transaction reporting
requirements.\18\ Specifically, NYSE's rules require that a member firm
mark the initial leg of a riskless principal transaction as
``riskless'' when the order is sent to the Exchange (``traditional
approach'') as opposed to submitting an order to the Exchange marked as
``principal'' and a separate non-tape, non-clearing report on the
second leg(s) of the facilitation transaction to the customer
(``alternative approach''). The commenters noted that NASD rules
provide member firms the option of taking the traditional approach or
the alternative approach. The commenters believed that a large number
of member firms have programmed their systems to report transactions
under the alternative approach and requiring a member firm to report
transactions under the traditional approach would result in significant
costs to such member firms. The commenters believed that NYSE should
make its rules consistent with NASD's rules and allow member firms to
use either the traditional approach or the alternative approach when
reporting riskless principal transactions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ SIFMA Letter at 3 and CGMI Letter at 2.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange noted that, while the NASD has the ability to allow
firms to report riskless principal transactions using the traditional
approach or the alternative approach, its regulatory reporting systems
are designed to use the traditional approach.\20\ The Exchange noted
that it would continue to review its trade reporting requirements for
riskless principal transactions, but that, in the interim, if firms
want to trade as riskless principal on the Exchange, they would be
required to follow the traditional approach.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Exchange stated that it did not believe there to be any
feasible alternative because it does not have a trade reporting
facility capable of receiving riskless principal orders and because
its surveillance system does not have access to NASD Order Audit
Trail (``OATS'') data. NYSE Response at 4.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also expressed concern that member firms would now
be required to submit order execution reports to FESC linking the
execution of the riskless principal order on the Exchange to the
specific underlying orders.\22\ The commenters requested clarification
on when such reports must be submitted to FESC, suggesting that it
should be end-of-day drop copy reporting, and requested that the
Exchange consider possible alternatives to reporting to FESC.\23\ In
addition, one commenter noted its belief that the information submitted
to FESC could be available to the Exchange through alternative
means.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SIFMA Letter at 3-4 and CGMI Letter at 2-3.
\23\ Id.
\24\ The commenter suggested that the Exchange could obtain such
information by making a request to NASD for OTS and OATS reporting.
CGMI Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange clarified that reporting to FESC would be by end-of-
day.\25\ In addition, the Exchange proposed to delay the implementation
of FESC reporting requirements for riskless principal transactions and
the use of the riskless principal account type indicator until January
16, 2008 so that member organizations would have time to develop and
implement the necessary systems changes to comply with such
requirement.\26\ However, the Exchange stated that if a member
organization intended to execute riskless principal transactions on the
Exchange before January 16, 2008, the member organization would be
required to have in place systems and controls that would allow it to
easily match and tie riskless principal executions on the Exchange to
the underlying orders.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NYSE Response at 4.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also noted that the proposal suggests that when
allocating riskless principal transactions that include Rule 92(b)
proprietary orders, orders from customers that have consented to trade
along with Rule 92(b) proprietary orders must yield to the non-
consenting customer orders.\28\ The commenters believed that the
inclusion of a Rule 92(b) proprietary order in the riskless principal
transaction should not alter the allocation rights of customers that
consented to trade along with a Rule 92(b) proprietary order.\29\ The
commenters believed that the orders of customers who have consented to
trading along should not be required to yield to the non-consenting
customer orders.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ CGMI Letter at 4 and CGMI Letter at 4.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange agreed with the commenters that the inclusion of a
Rule 92(b) proprietary order in the riskless principal transaction
should not alter the allocation rights of customers that consented to
trade along with a Rule 92(b) proprietary order.\31\ The Exchange
amended the proposal to ensure that no customer would be required to
yield to another customer, subject to regular parity of order
requirements.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NYSE Response at 5.
\32\ See Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the commenters requested that the Exchange clarify how
firms should allocate fills in accordance with the proposed exemption
from Rule 92 for certain Reg. NMS-compliant ISOs.\33\ The Exchange
clarified that a member firm must yield the executions of Reg. NMS-
compliant ISOs to open customer orders except the customer order that
the ISO was sent to facilitate, if that customer has consented to not
receiving the better prices obtained by the ISO.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ SIFMA Letter at 4 and CGMI Letter at 4.
\34\ NYSE Response at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, one commenter believed that the Exchange should amend Rule
92 so that member organizations would be permitted to trade alongside
of a customer order regardless of whether the specific purpose of the
proprietary order is the direct liquidation or hedge of a customer
facilitation position.\35\ In its response letter, the Exchange stated
that it does not believe that the instant filing is the proper vehicle
for addressing the issue of expanding Rule 92(b) trading limitations,
but noted that it would continue to review Rule 92 to determine whether
further amendments are warranted.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ CGMI Letter at 2.
\36\ NYSE Response at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\37\ In
particular, the Commission believes that it is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\38\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and
[[Page 38114]]
open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange proposes to add a new subsection to Rule 92 that would
permit riskless transactions for the purpose of facilitating the
execution, on a riskless principal basis, of one or more customer
orders and proposes to adopt the underlying order requirements of the
NASD's Manning Rule \39\ for riskless principal transactions at the
Exchange. Under the proposal, member firms would need to disclose to
customers the method by which the firm would allocate the shares bought
or sold in the riskless principal transaction, and would be required to
allocate shares in accordance with that method. In addition, when
executing riskless principal transactions, firms would be required to
submit order execution reports to FESC linking the execution of the
riskless principal order on the Exchange to the specific underlying
orders, beginning January 16, 2008. The Commission believes this aspect
of the proposed rule change is reasonable because it moves the NYSE's
rules towards harmonization with the Manning Rule, which should
eliminate duplicative and potentially conflicting regulatory
obligations on member firms, while at the same time assuring that the
important investor protection provisions embodied in the Manning Rule
apply to Exchange transactions. The Commission believes that the
Exchange's proposed January 16, 2008 implementation date for FESC
reporting requirements for riskless principal transactions and the use
of the riskless principal account type indicator is reasonable and
should provide member organizations the necessary time to revise their
systems as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See NASD Rule 2111 and IM-2110-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Exchange also proposes to modify the consent requirement of
NYSE Rule 92(b) to eliminate the requirement that members obtain order-
by-order consent from customers to permit the member to trade along
with such customer, and instead provide that customers may give
``blanket'' affirmative written consent for a member firm to trade
along, provided that certain conditions are met. In Amendment No. 3,
the Exchange stated that member firms would have until September 30,
2007 to obtain documentation of affirmative consent. The Commission
believes this portion of the proposal is also reasonable because it
should relieve member organizations of unnecessary administrative
burdens while at the same time still ensuring that Exchange members
obtain meaningful customer consent to members' trading along with their
customers. The Commission also believes that the proposal to provide
firms until September 30, 2007 to obtain documentation of affirmative
consent is reasonable in that it should give firms flexibility to
immediately make use of the new consent requirement while providing
them time for implementation of the revised requirement.
The Exchange further proposes expanding the class of investors that
may consent to a Rule 92(b) proprietary order to include all
institutional investors, regardless of the size of the order, and
individual investors with orders of 10,000 shares or more, unless such
orders are less than $100,000 in value. The Commission also believes
this aspect of the proposal is reasonable because it will conform the
Exchange's rule to the NASD's Manning Rule,\40\ thereby eliminating
potentially duplicative and conflicting obligations on member firms
while assuring that such members are held to a high level of customer
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See NASD Rule 2111 and IM-2110-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Exchange proposes adding an additional exemption to
Rule 92. The proposed exemption provides that when routing ISOs, the
member must yield its principal executions to any open customer orders
that are required to be protected by Rule 92 and capable of accepting
the fill except the customer order that the ISO was sent to facilitate,
if that customer has consented to not receiving the better prices
obtained by the ISO. The Commission believes this change is reasonable
because it will facilitate member compliance with their respective
intermarket sweep order routing obligations under Rule 611 of
Regulation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 17 CFR 242.611(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment No. 3 to the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after such Amendment is
published for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.\42\ The Commission believes that Amendment No. 3
serves to clarify the proposal, raises no new issues of regulatory
concern, and that publication of its provisions would needlessly delay
the implementation of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 3
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-NYSE-2007-21 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-21. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2007-21 and should be
submitted on or before August 2, 2007.
VI. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\43\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-21), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved, and that Amendment No.
3 to the proposed rule
[[Page 38115]]
change be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13497 Filed 7-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P