
[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]               
[Page 25014-25018]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06my10-110]                         

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62001; File No. SR-BX-2010-027]

 
Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish New Fee for TotalView 
Service Available to Non-Professionals and To Establish an Optional 
Non-Display Usage Cap for Internal Distributors of TotalView

April 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\

[[Page 25015]]

notice is hereby given that on April 23, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, 
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 establish a $1 per month fee for non-
professional use of real-time quotation and order information from the 
BX Market Center quoting and trading of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC 
(``Nasdaq''), The New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC 
(``Amex'') and other regional exchange-listed securities; and (ii) to 
approve the creation of an optional non-display usage cap of $16,000 
per month for internal distributors of BX TotalView.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new 
language is in italics and proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
7023. BX TotalView
(a) BX TotalView Entitlement
    The BX TotalView entitlement allows a subscriber to see all 
individual NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System participant orders and quotes 
displayed in the system [as well as] the aggregate size of such orders 
and quotes at each price level, and the trade data for executions that 
occur within [in the execution functionality of] the NASDAQ OMX BX 
Equities System.
    (1) Except as provided elsewhere in this rule, [in (a)(2)], for the 
BX TotalView entitlement there shall be a $20 monthly charge for each 
Subscriber of BX TotalView for Nasdaq issues and a $20 monthly charge 
for each Subscriber of BX TotalView for NYSE and regional issues.
    (2) As an alternative to (a)(1), a market participant may purchase 
an enterprise license at a rate of $16,000 per month for internal use 
of non-display data. The enterprise license entitles a distributor to 
provide BX TotalView to an unlimited number of non-display devices 
within its firm.
    (3) Free-Trial Offers
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (b) Non-Professional Services
    (1) The charge to be paid by non-professional subscribers for 
access to TotalView Service through an authorized vendor shall be $1.00 
per interrogation device per month.
    (2) A ``non-professional'' is a natural person who is neither:
    (A) registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, 
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any state securities 
agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or 
futures contract market or association;
    (B) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in 
Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or not 
registered or qualified under that Act); nor
    (C) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from 
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform 
functions that would require registration or qualification if such 
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
    (c) No change.
* * * * *

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 Exchange 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 aspects of such 
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and 
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes: (i) To establish a $1 per month fee for non-
professional use of real-time quotation and order information from the 
BX Market Center quoting and trading of Nasdaq-, NYSE-, Amex- and other 
regional exchange-listed securities; and (ii) to approve the creation 
of an optional non-display usage cap of $16,000 per month for internal 
distributors of BX TotalView.
    BX TotalView $1 Fee for Non-Professional Subscribers:
    The Exchange proposes to establish a new fee for its BX TotalView 
data product that is similar to that of Nasdaq. Like Nasdaq TotalView, 
BX TotalView provides all displayed quotes and orders in the market, 
with attribution to the relevant market participant, at every price 
level, as well as total displayed anonymous interest at every price 
level.
    To encourage more competition in the trading and quoting of U.S. 
exchange-listed stocks, as well as to encourage subscribership to 
Exchange full-depth products, the Exchange is proposing Rule 7023(b) to 
establish a $1 per month fee for non-professional subscribers to BX 
TotalView.\3\ BX TotalView consists of real-time market participant 
quotation information regarding the Exchange's trading of Nasdaq-, 
NYSE-, Amex- and other exchange-listed stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Both NYSE Arca, Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange LLC 
offer full-depth products. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 53469 (March 10, 2006), 71 FR 14045 (March 20, 2006) 
(SR-PCX-2006-24) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44138 
(December 7, 2001), 66 FR 64895 (December 14, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-
42), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously only approved a fee of $20 per month 
for both BX TotalView for Nasdaq and NYSE and all other regional 
exchange-listed issues combined. BX intended to establish these as 
separate fees and charged users beginning in January of 2010 a fee of 
$20 per month for BX TotalView and an additional fee of $20 for NYSE 
and all other regional exchange-listed issues. Therefore, Rule 
7023(a)(1) is being amended to correct this inadvertent error since the 
existing rule language does not clearly establish a fee of $20 per 
month for BX TotalView for Nasdaq issues and a separate fee of $20 per 
month for BX TotalView for NYSE and all other regional exchange-listed 
issues, as intended. All such fees exceeding the $20 combined fee as 
currently stated in the rulebook are being refunded and BX will 
continue to assess a single $20 fee until this proposed rule change is 
approved. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive 
market in which market participants can readily switch to competing 
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. 
The Exchange believes that its fees continue to be reasonable and 
equitably allocated.
    The Exchange believes that establishing a $1 per month fee for non-
professional subscribers to BX TotalView will promote wider 
distribution of data and benefit investors wishing to use that data in 
making investment decisions. The establishment of non-professional fees 
is a well-established practice of the network processors that 
distribute real-time consolidated data for Nasdaq, NYSE, and Amex 
stocks. As such, non-professional fees have been determined to be 
consistent with the Act and also

[[Page 25016]]

to be in the best interests of investors and the public.
    The fees are not unreasonably discriminatory, since the fees for 
non-professionals are uniform for all non-professionals. The fees are 
fair and reasonable in that they compare favorably to fees charged by 
other exchanges for comparable products.
    Rule 7023(a) is also being amended to clarify the data that is 
included in the BX TotalView Entitlement specifically includes trade 
data for executions that occur within the NASDAQ OMX Equities System. 
The data included remains consistent with what has always been included 
in the BX TotalView Entitlement, as well as the data included in the 
Nasdaq TotalView Entitlement. This revision is intended for 
clarification purposes only.
    BX TotalView Enterprise License:
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 7023 and establish 
an optional $16,000 per month non-display BX TotalView fee cap for 
internal distributors, which would encompass both BX TotalView for 
Nasdaq issues and BX TotalView for NYSE and regional issues. The BX 
TotalView fee cap would not include distributor fees. By providing this 
non-display usage cap, firms will have more administrative flexibility 
in their consumption of BX TotalView information.
    Currently, the Exchange requires that internal distributors count 
and report each server and display device that processes BX TotalView-
ITCH data as a professional BX TotalView user. Some firms report 
upwards of 500 devices, while other firms report as few as one non-
display device using BX TotalView-ITCH data.
    The Exchange proposes to permit a market participant to purchase an 
enterprise license at a rate of $16,000 per month for non-display usage 
in a firm. As the number of devices increase, so does the 
administrative burden on the end customer of counting these devices. 
For firms that feel they are near the capped amount, this new 
enterprise license helps relieve this administrative burden. 
Additionally, firms would purchase this optional enterprise license to 
reduce fees so no firms would experience a fee increase as a result of 
this filing. The Exchange's filing is substantially similar to a recent 
Nasdaq filing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61700 (March 12, 
2010), 75 FR 13172 (March 18, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with 
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it 
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and 
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any 
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls and is not 
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, 
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the BX TotalView fee for non-professional 
subscribers, the Exchange makes all services and products subject to 
these fees available on a non-discriminatory basis to similarly 
situated recipients. All fees are structured in manner comparable to 
corresponding fees of Nasdaq already in effect. The proposed fees for 
BX TotalView are equitably allocated since the fees for non-
professionals are uniform for all non-professionals. The fees are fair 
and reasonable in that they compare favorably to fees charged by other 
exchanges for comparable products.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the existing $20 combined fee for 
both BX TotalView for Nasdaq and NYSE and all other regional exchange-
listed issues by charging two separate $20 fees per month. One $20 fee 
would be charged for BX TotalView for Nasdaq and the other $20 fee 
would be charged for NYSE and all other regional exchange-listed 
issues. The $20 increase per month for subscribers is modest. 
Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly 
competitive market in which market participants can readily switch to 
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be 
excessive. The Exchange believes that its fees continue to be 
reasonable and equitably allocated.
    The Exchange's competitive response to pricing pressures in a 
competitive marketplace is consistent with what the Commission has 
described as ``the clear intent of Congress in adopting Section 11A of 
the Exchange Act that, whenever possible, competitive forces should 
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national 
market system for trading equity securities.'' \7\ Specifically with 
respect to pricing of non-core data products, the Commission has stated 
that ``[t]he Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support 
the Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting 
its regulatory responsibilities.'' \8\ A price reduction in response to 
competitive forces, such as the proposal here, is the essence of 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is neither inequitable nor unfairly 
discriminatory to provide volume-based discounts to members that 
contribute to the success of both the transaction execution and data 
businesses, in light of the link between these businesses that the 
Commission has recognized. In doing so, the Exchange not only 
acknowledges the multiple contributions of such customers to its 
profitability and the value it provides to other customers, but also 
provides incentives for other firms to increase their use of the 
Exchange's services across these business lines.
    Discounts based on a member's aggregate volumes of usage have 
routinely been adopted by exchanges (and by participants in many other 
industries), even though a member that reduces its volumes by trading 
in other markets may no longer qualify for the discount. For example, 
Nasdaq has volume pricing discounts for transaction executions and data 
currently in effect under Rules 7018 and 7023. A member that opts to 
provide high volumes of liquidity and distribute TotalView to large 
numbers of subscribers under an enterprise license currently receives 
favorable pricing for both executions and data, based on the aggregate 
volume of business that it brings to the exchange. If the member opts 
to direct order flow to another exchange or distribute other data 
products in lieu of TotalView, the discount will no longer be 
available--not because the member is being penalized, but simply 
because its consumption of products has dropped to a level that no 
longer justifies discounted pricing.
    As the Commission has found, market data and execution services are 
effectively a joint product--one in which market data is both an input 
to, and a byproduct of, trade execution.\9\ Accordingly, the Exchange 
believes that it is entirely appropriate that the benefits to the 
Exchange when a member provides liquidity and consumes and distributes 
data should be shared with the customers that provide those benefits. 
Notably, the Act does not prohibit all distinctions among customers, 
but rather discrimination that is unfair. And, as the Commission has 
recognized, ``[i]f competitive forces are operative, the self-interest 
of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain 
unreasonable or

[[Page 25017]]

unfair behavior.'' \10\ Accordingly, ``the existence of significant 
competition provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of 
an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not 
unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \11\ The proposal here was 
made not only in the presence of competition, but it is a direct 
product of competitive forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 
result in any burden on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange's 
proposed price reduction in response to competitive pricing offers is 
the essence of competition. As the Supreme Court has recognized, 
``cutting prices in order to increase business often is the very 
essence of competition.'' Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 594 (1986).
    If competitors lose business to the Exchange because the Exchange 
offers more attractive pricing, that is not a reduction of competition. 
Rather, it is a result of competition. As the Supreme Court has 
recognized:

    When a firm * * * lowers prices but maintains them above 
predatory levels, the business lost by rivals cannot be viewed as an 
``anticompetitive'' consequence of the claimed violation. A firm 
complaining about the harm it suffers from nonpredatory price 
competition ``is really claiming that it [is] unable to raise 
prices.'' This is not antitrust injury; indeed, ``cutting prices in 
order to increase business often is the very essence of 
competition.'' The antitrust laws were enacted for ``the protection 
of competition, not competitors.''

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 337-38 
(1990) (emphasis in original; citations omitted).

    Likewise with respect to the Exchange Act, Congress has ``expressed 
its preference for the Commission to rely on competition'' with respect 
to market information.\12\ Accordingly, in circumstances analogous to 
those here, the Commission has stated that ``reliance on competitive 
forces is the most appropriate and effective means to assess whether 
terms for the distribution of non-core data are equitable, fair and 
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. If competitive forces 
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work 
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission recently recognized,\14\ the market for 
transaction execution and routing services is highly competitive, and 
the market for proprietary data products is complementary to it, since 
the ultimate goal of such products is to attract further order flow to 
an exchange. Thus, exchanges lack the ability to set fees for 
executions or data at inappropriately high levels. Order flow is 
immediately transportable to other venues in response to differences in 
cost or value. Similarly, if data fees are set at inappropriate levels, 
customers that control order flow will not make use of the data and 
will be more inclined to send order flow to exchanges providing data at 
fees they consider more reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive 
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the 
inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing 
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges 
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, 
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish 
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data 
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in 
a vigorously competitive market.
    With regard to the market for executions, broker-dealers currently 
have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including 
multiple competing self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as 
well as broker-dealers (``BDs'') and aggregators such as the Direct 
Edge and LavaFlow electronic communications networks (``ECNs''). Each 
SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade 
executions, and FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') 
compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for 
BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow 
and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them 
all to a single market.
    Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction 
reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data 
products. The large number of SROs, TRFs, and ECNs that currently 
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it 
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each 
SRO, TRF, ECN and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data 
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, 
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSEArca, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    Any ECN or BD can combine with any other ECN, broker-dealer, or 
multiple ECNs or BDs to produce jointly proprietary data products. 
Additionally, non-BDs such as order routers like LAVA, as well as 
market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple broker-dealers' 
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of 
proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ECNs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete 
directly with SROs for the production and distribution of proprietary 
data products, as Archipelago and BATS
    Trading did prior to registering as SROs. Second, because a single 
order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a 
non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary 
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and 
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace writ large.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for 
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of 
access to end users. Although their business models may differ, vendors 
exercise pricing discipline because they can simply refuse to purchase 
any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. 
The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products must 
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing 
disciplines in order to successfully market proprietary data products.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described 
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly 
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. 
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants 
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms 
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, 
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading, and Direct Edge. 
Today, BATS publishes its data at no charge on its website in order to 
attract order flow, and it uses market data revenue rebates from the 
resulting executions to maintain low execution charges for its 
users.\15\ Several ECNs have existed

[[Page 25018]]

profitably for many years with a minimal share of trading, including 
Bloomberg Tradebook and LavaFlow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ However, on April 9, 2010 the Commission approved BATS 
proposed rule change to begin offering and charging for three new 
data products, which include BATS Last Sale Feed, BATS Historical 
Data Products, and a data product called BATS Market Insight. See 
Securities Exchange Act Release No.61885 (April 9, 2010), 75 FR 
20018 (April 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is a direct response to this competition. 
It recognizes the concern that the order flow and data product use that 
such firms currently bring to the Exchange may migrate elsewhere if 
their contributions are not appropriately recognized. At the same time, 
if other customers determine that their fees are too high in comparison 
to those paid by firms qualifying for the discount, they will take 
their business to other venues. Thus, the proposal must strike a 
balance between growing and retaining the business of actual and 
potential firms and the business of firms that lack the volume of 
business to become eligible. In light of the highly competitive nature 
of these markets, the Exchange's revenues and market share are likely 
to be diminished by the proposal if it strikes this balance in the 
wrong way.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission has recognized that an exchange's failure to 
strike this balance correctly will only harm the exchange. ``[M]any 
market participants would be unlikely to purchase the exchange's 
data products if it sets fees that are inequitable, unfair, 
unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory * * *. For example, an 
exchange's attempt to impose unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory 
fees on a certain category of customers would likely be counter-
productive for the exchange because, in a competitive environment, 
such customers generally would be able to respond by using 
alternatives to the exchanges data.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the concern identified by the Commission with respect to 
``an exchange proposal that seeks to penalize market participants for 
trading in markets other than the proposing exchange'' is inapplicable 
here.\17\ It is important that the Commission avoid stifling 
competition on the merits--including competition on price--out of a 
concern for protecting competitors from pricing pressure. Indeed, the 
Supreme Court has cautioned that ``mistaken inferences in cases'' 
involving alleged harm to competitors from low prices ``are especially 
costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are 
designed to protect.'' Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A concern that access to market data could be used to ``penalize'' 
market participants for trading in other markets may be plausible only 
if (a) the market data of the exchange in question is so essential to 
customers that the exchange has market power by virtue of the data, (b) 
the exchange requires customers to trade on its platform in exchange 
for access to the market data, and (c) competition on the merits is 
thwarted by the conditioning. None of those conditions is met here. As 
noted above, there is robust competition for market data, and customers 
can and do switch among various providers of market data. It would thus 
be implausible to suggest that the Exchange has any market power by 
virtue of its market data. Second, the Exchange has not attempted to 
condition access to market data on a customer's refusal to use a 
competitor's platform. Nor has the Exchange attempted to impose a 
``penalty'' on anyone--to the contrary, it is proposing a price 
reduction to respond to competitive offers. And, as noted above, the 
price reduction proposed here is the essence of competition, rather 
than an effort to thwart competition on the merits.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-BX-2010-027 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-BX-2010-027. 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 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 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-BX-2010-027 and should be submitted on or before May 27, 
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10597 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

