814 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Notices 

11 In addition, Rule 19b–4(f)(6) provides that the 

Exchange must provide the Commission notice of 

its intent to file the proposed rule change, along 

with a brief description and text of the proposed 

rule change, at least five business days prior to the 

date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such 

shorter time as designated by the Commission. The 

Exchange has satisfied this requirement. 

12See CBOE Rule 6.54, Interpretations and 

Policies .03. 

13For purposes only of waiving the operative 

delay for this proposal, the Commission has 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63305 

(November 10, 2010), 75 FR 70331 (‘‘Notice’’). 

4A specialist unit may have one or more 

individual specialists. See proposed Supplementary 

Material .05 to Rule 511. 

5An SQT is a Registered Options Trader (‘‘ROT’’) 

who has received permission from the Exchange to 

generate and submit option quotations 

electronically in options to which such SQT is 

assigned. An SQT may only submit such quotations 

while such SQT is physically present on the floor 

of the Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A). 

6An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member 

organization with no physical trading floor 

presence who has received permission from the 

Exchange to generate and submit option quotations 

electronically in options to which such RSQT has 

been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such 

quotations electronically from off the floor of the 

Exchange. See Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). 

7SQTs also include Directed SQTs (‘‘DSQTs’’) and 

Directed RSQTs (‘‘DRSQTs’’), which are SQTs and 

RSQTs that receive a Directed Order. Exchange Rule 

1080(l)(i)(A) defines Directed Order. 

such shorter time as the Commission 

may designate if consistent with the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest.11

The Exchange has requested that the 

Commission waive the 30-day operative 

delay period. The Commission hereby 

grants the request. The Commission 

notes that the proposal is nearly 

identical to the rules of another 

exchange.12 Therefore, the Commission 

believes it is consistent with the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest to waive the 30-day operative 

delay and designates the proposal as 

operative upon filing.13

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act.14

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–Phlx–2010–185 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–Phlx–2010–185. 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, 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 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–Phlx– 

2010–185 and should be submitted on 

or before January 27, 2011. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33364 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–63627; File No. SR–Phlx2010–153] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order 

Approving a Proposed Rule Change To 

Update and Streamline the Process for 

Specialist Evaluations and Clarify the 

Time Within Which SQTs and RSQTs 

Must Begin To Electronically Quote 

After Assignment 

December 30, 2010. 

I. Introduction 

On November 5, 2010, the NASDAQ 

OMX PHLX LLC (‘‘Phlx’’ 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 update and streamline the 

process for specialist evaluations and 

clarify the time within which Streaming 

Quote Traders (‘‘SQTs’’) and Remote 

Streaming Quote Traders (‘‘RSQTs’’) 

must begin to electronically quote after 

assignment. The proposed rule change 

was published for comment in the 

Federal Register on November 17, 

2010.3 The Commission received no 

comment letters regarding the proposal. 

This order approves the proposed rule 

change. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend Phlx By-Law Article 

XI Section 11–1; Rules 507, 508, 510, 

511, and 515; and OFPA C–8 to revise 

the process the Exchange will use to 

assess specialist performance, as well as 

to ensure timely electronic quotations 

by SQTs and RSQTs and the ability of 

the Exchange to control allocation 

transfers. 

Rules 500 through 599 (the 

‘‘Allocation and Assignment Rules’’) 

generally describe the process for: 

application for becoming and 

appointment of specialists; allocation of 

classes of options to specialist units and 

individual specialists; 4 application for 

becoming and approval of SQTs 5 and 

RSQT6 (collectively, the ‘‘Streaming 

Quote Traders’’) 7 and assignment of 

options to them; and performance 

evaluations for specialist units and 

SQTs. The Allocation and Assignment 

Rules also indicate, among other things, 

under what circumstances new 

specialist allocations and Streaming 

Quote Trader assignments may not be 

made. 

Rules 511 and 515 deal with specialist 

evaluations and certain allocation 

procedures. Currently, Rule 511 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Notices 815 

8The Exchange currently presumes that a 

specialist unit performed below minimum 

standards if the specialist unit was rated in the 

bottom 10% of all units in the aggregate results for 

all questionnaires. 

9Proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 

511 states that reference to specialist unit within 

Rule 511 means the unit as a whole or any subpart 

of its operation that is acting in a specialist capacity 

on the Exchange and is subject to evaluation; and 

that a specialist unit may have one or more 

individual specialists. As such, individual 

specialist actions may be attributable to relevant 

specialist units in respect of matters discussed in 

this proposal such as evaluations. The proposed 

language in Rule 511 was moved from Rule 515 and 

updated to reflect current usage. 

10 In proposed Rule 511(d) and Rule 511(e), a 

specialist has the right to request an appeal on 

behalf of his specialist unit. 

11By-Law Article XI Section 11–1(c) states that an 

appeal shall be heard by a special committee of the 

Board of Governors composed of three (3) 

Governors, of whom at least one (1) shall be an 

Independent Governor. The person requesting 

review may appeal by filing a written notice thereof 

with the Secretary of the Exchange within ten (10) 

days after a decision. The person requesting review 

shall be permitted to submit a written statement to 

and/or appear before this special committee. The 

Secretary of the Exchange shall certify the record 

of the proceeding, if any and the written decision 

and shall submit these documents to the special 

committee. The special committee’s review of the 

action shall be based solely on the record, the 

written decision and any statement submitted by 

the person requesting the review. The special 

committee shall prepare and deliver to such person 

a written decision and reasons therefor. If the 

special committee affirms the action, the action 

shall become effective ten (10) days from the date 

of the special committee’s decision. There shall be 

no appeal to the Board of Governors from any 

decision of the special committee. 

The Exchange is correcting a reference in By-Law 

Article XI Section 11–1(c) from Rule 511(e) to Rule 

511(d) or (e), in light of the internal numbering 

changes proposed in Rule 511; and crossreferencing Rule 507, which notes the availability 

of the appeal process. 

12For consistency, the Exchange proposes appeal 

language in Rules 510 and 511 that is similar, in 

relevant part, to that of Rule 507: An appeal to the 

Board of Governors from a decision of the Exchange 

* * * may be requested * * * by filing with the 

Secretary of the Exchange written notice of appeal 

within ten (10) days after the decision has been 

rendered, in accordance with Exchange By-Law 

Article XI, Section 11–1. 

13 In that the Exchange would specifically 

establish a measure of specialist performance on 

Phlx, the Exchange would change the requirement 

to PBBO from NBBO (National Best Bid or Offer). 

A reference in Commentary .01 of Rule 510 would 

similarly be changed to PBBO for the sake of 

conformity. 

14This rule change proposal would make no 

changes to current quoting requirements for 

specialists delineated in Rule 1014. 

indicates, among other things, that 

specialist performance evaluations may 

be used to inform Exchange decisions 

regarding allocating new options 

classes, reallocating options classes for 

substandard performance, determining 

whether a specialist that has been 

transferred an options class is 

performing adequately, and determining 

whether a staff reorganization or 

material change with respect to a 

specialist unit has affected the ability of 

the unit to continue to perform 

adequately in order to retain allocated 

securities. Rule 511 also discusses the 

process and timing for doing routine 

and special (cause) evaluations and 

reviews. 

Currently, Rule 515 discusses 

specialist performance evaluations for 

options specialists and indicates, among 

other things, the timing and frequency 

of evaluations. The criterion to evaluate 

specialists may include, but is not 

limited to, quality of markets, 

observance of ethical standards, 

administrative responsibilities, and 

trade correction and exemptive relief 

data. Rule 515, as well as OFPA C–8, 

also discusses the use of floor broker 

questionnaires in the specialist 

evaluation process, which asks floor 

brokers their opinions of specialist 

performance.8

The Exchange now proposes to 

consolidate Rules 511 and 515 into a 

combined Rule 511 and to adopt for 

specialist units 9 an objective review 

process that is similar to the process 

currently in use for Streaming Quote 

Traders per current Rule 510. The 

Exchange also proposes to relocate 

portions of the existing evaluation 

process from Rule 515 into Rule 511. As 

such, there would be two types of 

specialist evaluations or reviews per 

revised Rule 511: (i) Routine Specialist 

Performance Evaluations, which would 

be conducted on at least an annual 

basis, and would take into account any 

Minimum Performance Reviews 

conducted by the Exchange; and (ii) 

Special Circumstance Evaluations, 

which may be conducted on an ad hoc 

basis. 

Further, the Exchange proposes 

changes to Rule 511 so that specialist 

suspension, termination, or restriction 

of allocations in one or more options 

may occur after two or more consecutive 

sub-standard Minimum Performance 

Reviews or after Special Circumstance 

Evaluations and after written notice. As 

discussed below, following substandard 

minimum performance, a specialist unit 

may have an opportunity for an 

informal meeting with Exchange staff. 

Moreover, the proposed rules provide 

the circumstances under which a 

specialist or specialist unit 10 may 

appeal, after filing a written notice of 

appeal with the Exchange, from a 

decision of the Exchange following a 

Minimum Performance Review or a 

Special Circumstance Evaluation in 

accordance with Exchange By-Law 

Article XI, Section 11–1.11

Routine Specialist Performance 

Evaluations 

Routine Specialist Performance 

Evaluations pursuant to proposed Rule 

511(c) would be conducted at annual (or 

more frequent) intervals to determine 

whether specialists have fulfilled 

performance standards that may 

include, but are not limited to, trade 

correction data, exemptive relief data, 

quality of markets data, proper 

execution of duties as a specialist unit, 

competition among market makers and 

in representing the Exchange as 

specialist unit, observance of ethical 

standards, and administrative factors. 

The Exchange also may consider, when 

doing routine evaluations, any other 

relevant information including, but not 

limited to, trading data, regulatory 

history, the number of requests for quote 

spread parameter relief, how a specialist 

unit optimizes the submission of quotes 

through the Specialized Quote Feed as 

defined in Rule 1080 by evaluating the 

number of individual quotes per quote 

block received by the Exchange, and 

such other factors and data as may be 

pertinent in the circumstances. 

The Exchange also proposes to 

establish new minimum performance 

standards for specialist units.12

Specifically, new Rule 511(d) proposes 

minimum acceptable performance 

standards for specialist units using the 

following criteria: (i) The percentage of 

time that the specialist unit represents 

or exceeds the Phlx Best Bid or Offer 

(‘‘PBBO’’) in the options allocated to the 

unit 13 and (ii) quoting requirements of 

specialist units pursuant to Rule 1014.14

If the percentage of the total time that 

the options allocated to a specialist unit 

represent or exceed the PBBO is in the 

lowest quartile of all specialist units for 

two or more consecutive months, this 

may be considered sub-standard 

performance, that is, performance that 

does not attain minimum performance 

standards. If a specialist unit fails to 

meet the quoting requirements as 

prescribed by Rule 1014, this may be 

considered sub-standard performance. 

The Exchange proposes a process that 

would allow a specialist to meet with 

Exchange staff regarding alleged substandard performance. Specifically, the 

Exchange proposes in new Rule 

511(d)(ii) that if the Exchange finds that 

a specialist unit failed to meet 

Minimum Performance Standards, it 

would provide written notice to the 

unit. Pursuant to new Rule 511(d)(iii), 

the specialist unit may request and the 

Exchange may hold an informal meeting 

with the head specialist and any other 

appropriate specialist of the specialist 

unit to discuss the failure to meet 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
816 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Notices 

15For purposes of conformity with the proposed 

six month period, 90 days would be changed to 180 

days (six months) in Rule 511(b). 

16While Special Circumstance Evaluations are 

optional during the noted four month and six 

month periods, the Exchange also may conduct 

separate Minimum Performance Reviews during 

that period. 

17See supra note 11. 

18Rule 507 also defines the Maximum Number of 

Quoters (‘‘MNQ’’) in equity options, which 

establishes the greatest number of SQT and RSQT 

assignments that the Exchange may make in a 

particular class of option. MNQ in equity options 

is currently set in Commentary .02 to Rule 507 at 

no more than: (i) Twenty-four market participants 

(SQTs and RSQTs) for equity options in the top 5% 

most actively traded options; (ii) nineteen market 

participants for the next 10% most actively traded 

options; (iii) and seventeen market participants for 

all other options. 

minimum standards and to explore 

possible remedies. The Exchange would 

give notice of the meeting and no 

verbatim record would be kept. If, after 

receiving such notice from the 

Exchange, the specialist unit refuses or 

otherwise fails without reasonable 

justification to meet with the Exchange, 

the Exchange may refer the matter to the 

Exchange’s Business Conduct 

Committee for the commencement of 

formal disciplinary proceedings. If the 

Exchange believes there are no 

mitigating circumstances that would 

demonstrate substantial improvement of 

or reasonable justification for the failure 

to meet minimum standards, the 

Exchange could take remedial action 

pursuant to Rule 511(d)(ii). 

The Exchange proposes in Rule 

511(d)(ii) that if it finds sub-standard 

minimum performance by a specialist 

unit, the Exchange may take the 

following remedial actions: (i) 

Restriction of allocations in additional 

options (subsection (d)(ii)(A)); (ii) 

suspension, termination, or restriction 

of allocations in one or more options 

(subsection (d)(ii)(B)); or (iii) 

suspension, termination, or restriction 

of the specialist or specialist unit’s 

registration in general (subsection 

(d)(ii)(C)). Specialist units or specialists 

therein may appeal to the Board of 

Governors from a decision of the 

Exchange pursuant to subsection 

(d)(ii)(B) or subsection (d)(ii)(C) by filing 

the requisite notice of appeal. Under the 

proposal, Minimum Performance 

Reviews would be conducted at least 

annually but may be conducted more 

frequently, including at monthly 

intervals. 

The Exchange also proposes to 

eliminate the floor broker questionnaire. 

The Exchange believes that the 

questionnaire, which is subjective in 

nature and not based on data, provides 

limited value in the Exchange’s current 

specialist review process. Instead, the 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

revised specialist performance 

evaluations it now proposes will better 

inform the evaluation process and make 

it increasingly data-based, thereby 

rendering the floor broker 

questionnaires unnecessary. 

Special Circumstance Evaluations 

Under the proposal, the Exchange 

may also, but is not required to, conduct 

Special Circumstance Evaluations 

pursuant to proposed Rule 511(e) 

whenever the Exchange believes that 

circumstances warrant such reviews. 

For example, a Special Circumstance 

Evaluation may be conducted if a 

specialist unit’s performance appeared 

to be so deficient as to call into question 

the Exchange’s integrity or impair the 

Exchange’s reputation for maintaining 

efficient, fair and orderly markets. 

Special Circumstance Evaluations also 

may be conducted within six months of 

new allocations 15 and within four 

months of transfers of allocations to 

specialist units.16 Special Circumstance 

Evaluations may incorporate the same 

review methodology and procedures as 

established for routine Specialist 

Performance Evaluations or Minimum 

Performance Reviews. However, Special 

Circumstance Evaluations may instead 

(or in addition) examine such other 

matters related to a specialist unit’s 

performance as the Exchange deems 

necessary and appropriate. 

The Exchange may determine, 

pursuant to a Rule 511 Special 

Circumstance Evaluation, that a 

specialist unit that received a new 

allocation has not complied with the 

commitments that it made when 

applying for the options class, 

including, but not limited to, 

commitments regarding capital, 

personnel and order flow (subsection 

(e)(i)(A)) or that the performance of a 

specialist unit was inadequate after the 

transfer of one or more options classes 

or when there has been a material 

change in the specialist unit (subsection 

(e)(i)(B)). After the Exchange indicates 

to the applicable specialist unit why its 

performance is inadequate, the 

specialist unit would be afforded thirty 

days in which to improve its 

performance. If the specialist unit does 

not improve its performance, the 

Exchange may, after written notice, 

remove and reallocate one or more 

securities that were allocated to such 

unit. Specialist units and specialists 

therein may appeal to the Board of 

Governors from a decision of the 

Exchange pursuant to proposed 

subsection (e)(ii) by filing the requisite 

notice of appeal.17

Additionally, the proposed rules 

establish limits on the allocation of new 

options to specialist units that fail to 

perform adequately. Under proposed 

Rule 511(e)(iii), if a specialist allocation 

in an option is terminated as a result of 

a Special Circumstance Evaluation, the 

specialist unit may not receive an 

allocation (or re-allocation) in the 

terminated option or options for a 

period not to exceed six months. 

Similarly, under proposed Rule 

511(d)(v), if an allocation is terminated 

because a specialist exhibits substandard performance in terms of best 

bid and offer or in terms of quoting 

requirements, such specialist may not 

receive an allocation (or re-allocation) in 

the terminated option or options for a 

period not to exceed six months; and if 

an allocation is terminated because a 

specialist unit exhibits sub-standard 

performance in terms of minimum 

quoting requirements per Rule 1014, 

such specialist unit may not receive an 

allocation (or re-allocation) in the 

terminated option or options for a 

period not to exceed twelve months. 

As discussed, all specialists and 

specialist units would have the right to 

appeal from an Exchange decision that 

was taken pursuant to a Specialist 

Evaluation or a Special Circumstance 

Evaluation. Moreover, the Exchange 

would provide written notice regarding 

the lack of adequate performance and 

give specialist units an opportunity to 

discuss performance before the 

Exchange would take remedial action. 

In Rule 510 (regarding SQTs and 

RSQTs) and Rule 511 (regarding 

specialists), the Exchange proposes to 

eliminate the right to appeal from an 

Exchange’s determination to restrict 

additional options allocations based on 

failure to meet minimum performance 

requirements. The Exchange believes 

that a formal appeal process for 

restriction of allocations or assignments 

in additional (not currently allocated or 

assigned) options, which would require 

a 10 day notice period followed by a 

potentially lengthy appeals proceeding, 

is not necessary and may be 

counterproductive in light of the 

Exchange’s desire to efficiently allocate 

or assign additional options on a timely 

basis. 

Assignment in Options 

Rule 507 deals with the process of 

applying for approval as an SQT or 

RSQT on the Exchange and assignment 

of options to SQTs and RSQTs.18 The 

Exchange proposes to add new 

Commentary .01 to Rule 507 to state that 

within not more than thirty business 

days after assignment of an option 

pursuant to this rule, an assigned SQTs 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Notices 817 

19The Exchange notes that this change in 

terminology conforms it to current usage. 

20 In approving this proposed rule change, the 

Commission has considered the proposed rule’s 

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 

formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

or RSQTs shall begin to generate and 

submit electronic quotations for such 

option through the Exchange’s 

electronic quotation, execution, and 

trading system. Should an assigned SQT 

or RSQT not generate electronic quotes 

within the requisite time frame, the 

Exchange would have the ability to 

terminate the assignment in question 

after providing written notice to the 

assigned SQT or RSQT, and make a reassignment, unless there are exigent 

circumstances that the Exchange 

believes may not have allowed timely 

generation and submission of electronic 

quotes. 

Transfer of Allocated Option Classes 

Rule 508 deals with agreements 

between specialist units to transfer one 

or more options classes that are already 

allocated by the Exchange to one of such 

units. Currently, Rule 508 states that 

failure to provide the Exchange with 

prior notice of an arranged (agreedupon) transfer of one or more already 

allocated options classes in accordance 

with this rule permits the Exchange to 

reallocate such options classes. 

Pursuant to the proposed change, Rule 

508 would state that failure to provide 

the Exchange prior notice of a transfer 

in accordance with this Rule, or failure 

to obtain Exchange approval of a 

transfer, would permit the Exchange to 

recover the allocated securities and 

reallocate them. The Exchange believes 

that this is appropriate given that the 

Exchange initially makes the allocation 

of the option class after evaluating the 

relevant factors, and should continue to 

have a similar ability to evaluate the 

propriety of subsequent transfer of the 

same option class. 

The Exchange proposes to delete 

Commentary .01 to Rule 508 that 

currently indicates that no member may 

effect a change in the floor trading 

location of any equity option or index 

option class until forty-five calendar 

days after final approval of the change 

by the Exchange has been disseminated 

to the option floor. The Exchange 

believes that the 45-day period is 

unnecessarily long in light of the 

current fast-paced trading environment. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes 

technical rule changes to ensure 

conformity of rule language and delete 

references that are obsolete or no longer 

in use. The reference to Registrant 

would be changed to specialist or 

specialist unit in Rules 508 and 511, 

and the reference to ‘‘grant’’ would be 

changed to ‘‘allocate’’ in Rule 511 for 

purposes of conformity.19 The Exchange 

further proposes to remove the reference 

to initial implementation of the existing 

rule in Commentary .02 of Rule 510. 

The Exchange also proposes to make 

conforming changes in Rule 511 in light 

of the changes to Rule 515. 

III. 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 20 and, in particular, the 

requirements of Section 6(b) of the 

Act 21 and the rules and regulations 

thereunder. Specifically, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the 

Act,22 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 

open market and a national market 

system and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

The Commission believes that the 

Exchange’s proposal updates its 

specialist evaluation process to make it 

more objective and more consistent with 

the process used for other Streaming 

Quote Traders. While the Exchange is 

changing its process for evaluating 

specialists, it is not proposing any 

changes to existing specialist 

obligations, including the quoting 

requirements for specialists delineated 

in Rule 1014. Further, though the 

Exchange would replace the current 

formal appeal and hearing process with 

a more informal hearing process in the 

context of alleged failure of 

performance, it would retain an 

opportunity for the specialist or 

specialist unit to be heard on the matter 

before the Exchange takes remedial 

action. In addition, the Exchange would 

preserve the requirement to provide 

advance written notice to a specialist or 

a specialist unit to inform it of its right 

to appeal an Exchange’s decision 

regarding a specialist’s failure to meet 

the minimum performance standards. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes 

the streamlined specialist evaluation 

procedures are reasonable and will 

allow the Exchange to monitor and 

review specialist performance in the 

interests of ensuring compliance with 

all applicable requirements. 

Further, the Commission believes that 

the proposed time requirement for a 

SQT or a RSQT to electronically quote, 

i.e., within thirty business days after 

assignment, is reasonable. This 

provision will allow the Exchange to 

ensure that new appointments are 

utilized promptly and would enable the 

Exchange to, in the absence of exigent 

circumstances, reassign those options 

after a written notice is provided to the 

previously assigned SQT or RSQT. 

IV. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,23 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–Phlx–2010– 

153) be, and hereby is, approved. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33365 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Request 

The Social Security Administration 

(SSA) publishes a list of information 

collection packages requiring clearance 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in compliance with 

Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 

1, 1995. This notice includes revisions 

to OMB-approved information 

collections. 

SSA is soliciting comments on the 

accuracy of the agency’s burden 

estimate; the need for the information; 

its practical utility; ways to enhance its 

quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to 

minimize burden on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Mail, e-mail, or 

fax your comments and 

recommendations on the information 

collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer 

and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 

the following addresses or fax numbers. 

(OMB), Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, 

Fax: 202–395–6974, E-mail address: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

(SSA), Social Security Administration, 

DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance 

Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 

Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, 

Fax: 410–965–6400, E-mail address: 

OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES