[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18386-18393]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06880]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69194; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Price/Display/Time Priority
Algorithm, Permit the Registration of Market Makers, and Amend the
Order Types Available on PSX

March 20, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 8, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change, which filing was amended and replaced in its
entirety by Amendment No. 1 thereto on March 18, 2013, 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 modify certain aspects of the operation of
NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx/
, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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
    In 2010, Phlx launched PSX as a new platform for trading NMS
stocks,\3\ using a novel price/size pro rata model for allocating the
execution of incoming orders against orders resting on the PSX book.\4\
Phlx anticipated that this market model would gain traction as an
alternative to a national market structure in which the prevailing
price/time model places an emphasis on the speed with which market
participants can route and cancel orders as the means to optimize their
executions. Unfortunately, the price/size execution model has been only
marginally successful in garnering market share, primarily due to the
risk of a large execution at a stale price that a market participant
would face if unable to adjust the prices of its posted orders quickly.
Accordingly, Phlx has decided to adopt a price/time model for PSX. In
addition, Phlx is proposing to allow member organizations to register
as market makers on PSX, provided they satisfy two-sided quoting and
market quality requirements associated with that status. Finally, Phlx
is proposing to introduce midpoint peg post-only orders, and price to
comply post orders; to adjust the operation of minimum quantity orders
and post-only orders; and to eliminate minimum life orders. In all
material respects, the rules as adjusted by this proposed rule change
will be identical to rules in effect at The NASDAQ Stock Market
(``NASDAQ'') and/or NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''). Phlx proposes to
implement the change as soon as practicable following Commission
approval. This Amendment No. 1 to the original filing corrects several
minor typographical errors in the original filing and provides
additional explanation with respect to the purpose and effect of some
of the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Defined in SEC Rule 600 under Regulation NMS, 17 CFR
242.600, to mean any security or class of securities (other than an
option) for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and
made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62877 (September 9,
2010), 75 FR 56633 (September 16, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Processing Algorithm
    The order processing algorithm currently in use at PSX allocates
the execution of incoming orders against posted liquidity in following
order:
    (1) Price. Better priced orders are executed first.
    (2) Pro-Rata Allocation to Size Among Displayed Orders with a Size
of One Round Lot or More. As among equally priced Displayed Orders with
a size of at least one round lot, PSX allocates the round lot portions
of incoming executable orders pro rata based on the size of the
Displayed Orders. Portions of an order that would be executed in a size
other than a round lot if they were allocated pro rata are allocated on
the basis of a random function that assigns probability of execution
based on the size of displayed interest.
    (3) Displayed Odd-Lot Orders. As among equally priced Displayed
Orders with a size of less than one round lot, PSX allocates incoming
orders based on the size of the Displayed Orders, but not in pro rata
fashion. If there are two or more such orders of equal size, PSX
determines the order of execution on the basis of a random function
that assigns each order an equal probability of execution.
    (4) Pro-Rata Allocation to Size Among Non-Displayed Interest with a
Size of One Round Lot or More. As among equally priced Non-Displayed
Orders and the reserve portion of Reserve Orders (collectively, ``Non-
Displayed Interest'') with a size of at least one round lot, PSX
allocates round lot portions of incoming executable orders to Non-
Displayed Interest pro rata based on the size of the Non-Displayed
Interest. Portions of an order that would be executed in a size other
than a round lot if they were allocated pro rata are allocated on the
basis of a random function that assigns probability of execution based
on the size of Non-Displayed Interest.
    (5) Minimum Quantity Orders. As among equally priced Minimum
Quantity Orders, PSX allocates incoming executable orders in the
ascending order of the size of the minimum quantity conditions assigned
to the orders. If there are two or more Minimum Quantity Orders with an
equal minimum quantity condition, the System will determine the order
of execution on the basis of a random function that assigns each order
an equal probability of execution.
    (6) Non-Displayed Odd-Lot Orders. As among equally priced Non-
Displayed Interest with a size of less than one round lot, PSX
allocates incoming orders based on the size of the Non-Displayed
Interest, but not in pro rata fashion. If there are two or more such
orders of equal size, PSX determines the order of execution on the
basis of a random functions that assigns each order an equal
probability of execution.
    Phlx is amending Rule 3307, and making conforming changes to Rule

3306, to replace this algorithm with a straightforward price/display/
time priority algorithm that is substantively identical to
corresponding rules in effect at NASDAQ and BX. The modified algorithm
is as follows:
    (1) Price. Better priced orders are executed first.
    (2) Displayed Orders. As among equally priced Displayed Orders, the
first to arrive on the book is executed first.
    (3) Non-Displayed Orders and the Reserve Portion of Quotes \5\ and
Reserve Orders. As among equally priced Non-Displayed Orders and the
reserve portion of Quotes and Reserve Orders, the first to arrive on
the books is executed first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed below, PSX will introduce quoting functionality
in support of the introduction of market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSX rules currently provide for an anti-internalization exception
to the algorithm, designed to allow a PSX Participant to prevent its
own orders from interacting with each other. Phlx is modifying this
exception so that it conforms to a similar exception in effect at
NASDAQ and BX. Specifically, the rules of all three exchanges currently
provide that a market participant may direct that orders not execute
against orders entered under the same market participant identifier
(``MPID''), or under the same MPID and with a unique group
identification modifier (for example, by grouping all orders entered
through a particular order entry port). In other words, the market
participant may limit interaction among all orders under the MPID, or
only an identified subset of orders. Under current PSX rules, if two
orders that are not permitted to interact with each other are matched
through the order execution algorithm, the orders are decremented by
share amounts equal to the size of the portion of the incoming order
that is designated to interact with a posted order. Thus, if 100 shares
of an incoming order to buy 200 shares are designated to execute
against a posted order to sell 1,000 shares, and the two orders have
been marked not to execute against each other, the incoming order and
the posted order will each by decremented by 100 shares. The orders are
decremented to reflect that the Participant, having adopted anti-
internalization protection, does not intend to buy shares that it is
simultaneously selling. The revisions to the rule retain this logic,
but give the Participant additional choice as to how the conflict
should be resolved. First, the Participant may opt for the same
treatment as currently provided by PSX, although the revised rule text
reflects the change in order execution algorithm by providing that if
the two orders are the same size, they will both be cancelled, while if
one is larger, the smaller of the two is cancelled and the larger is
decremented and retained. This changed language reflects the fact that
in a price/time algorithm, an incoming order will be executed to the
maximum extent possible against orders on the book in price/time
sequence, whereas under the current algorithm, an incoming order may be
allocated across multiple resting orders based on their size.
Alternatively, a Participant may opt to have the oldest of the two
orders cancelled in full, regardless of the respective sizes of the
orders. The Participant may make this election across an entire MPID,
or may differentiate among order entry ports associated with the MPID.
Market Making
    Phlx is proposing to adopt rules that are already in effect at
NASDAQ and/or BX to allow member organizations that are PSX
Participants to register and act as market makers. Following the
effectiveness of the proposed changes, Phlx plans to introduce programs
designed to encourage PSX Participants to register as market makers,
with the goal of enhancing the liquidity and market quality of trading
on PSX.
    Proposed Rule 3212 provides that quotations and quotation sizes may
be entered into PSX only by a member organization registered as a PSX
Market Maker or other entity approved by the Exchange to function in a
market-making capacity. A PSX Market Maker may become registered in an
issue by entering a registration request via an Exchange approved
electronic interface with PSX's systems or by contacting PSX Market
Operations. Registration shall become effective on the day the
registration request is entered. A PSX Market Maker's registration in
an issue shall be terminated by the Exchange if the market maker fails
to enter quotations in the issue within five (5) business days after
the market maker's registration in the issue becomes effective. The
rule is intended to provide a flexible means by which member
organizations may register as market makers, while ensuring that they
make prompt use of such registration.
    Proposed amendments to Rule 3217 provide that all PSX Market Makers
must be open during regular market hours (9:30 a.m. through 4:00
p.m.).\6\ PSX Market Makers are also permitted to operate during pre-
market (8:00 a.m. through 9:30 a.m.) and post-market (4:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.) hours. PSX Market Makers must comply with rules governing
quotations at all times that their quotes are open, unless a rule is
inapplicable to pre-market or post-market hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All times are Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed amendments to Rule 3213 impose quoting obligations on PSX
Market Makers identical to those in effect at NASDAQ and BX. Under the
amended rule, a member organization registered as a Market Maker is
required to engage in a course of dealings for its own account to
assist in the maintenance, insofar as reasonably practicable, of fair
and orderly markets in accordance with this Rule. In accordance with
the requirement, the rule specifically requires a member organization
registered as a Market Maker in a particular security to be willing to
buy and sell such security for its own account on a continuous basis
during regular market hours and to enter and maintain a two-sided
trading interest (``Two-Sided Obligation'') that is identified to the
Exchange as the interest meeting the obligation and is displayed in
PSX's quotation montage at all times. Interest eligible to be
considered as part of a Market Maker's Two-Sided Obligation must have a
displayed quotation size of at least one normal unit of trading \7\ (or
a larger multiple thereof); provided, however, that a Market Maker may
augment its Two-Sided Obligation size to display limit orders priced at
the same price as the Two-Sided Obligation. After an execution against
its Two-Sided Obligation, a Market Maker must ensure that additional
trading interest exists in PSX to satisfy its Two-Sided Obligation
either by immediately entering new interest to comply with this
obligation to maintain continuous two-sided quotations or by
identifying existing interest on the PSX book that will satisfy this
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Unless otherwise designated, 100 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For NMS stocks a Market Maker shall adhere to certain pricing
obligations established by the rule, which are premised on entering
quotation prices that are not more than a ``Designated Percentage'' \8\
away from the National

Best Bid or Best Offer \9\ (as applicable), and that must be refreshed
if a change in the National Best Bid or Best Offer causes the quotation
price to be more than a ``Defined Limit'' \10\ away from the National
Best Bid or Best Offer.\11\ As described below, the applicable
Designated Percentage and Defined Limit depends [sic] on the specific
security traded and the time of day. For bid quotations, at the time of
entry of bid interest satisfying the Two-Sided Obligation, the price of
the bid interest may not be more than the applicable Designated
Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid, or if no
National Best Bid, not more than the Designated Percentage away from
the last reported sale from the responsible single plan securities
information processor. In the event that the National Best Bid (or if
no National Best Bid, the last reported sale) increases to a level that
would cause the bid interest of the Two-Sided Obligation to be more
than the Defined Limit away from the National Best Bid (or if no
National Best Bid, the last reported sale), or if the bid is executed
or cancelled, the Market Maker shall enter new bid interest at a price
not more than the Designated Percentage away from the then current
National Best Bid (or if no National Best Bid, the last reported sale),
or identify to the Exchange current resting interest that satisfies the
Two-Sided Obligation. Similarly, for offer quotations, at the time of
entry of offer interest satisfying the Two-Sided Obligation, the price
of the offer interest may not be more than the Designated Percentage
away from the then current National Best Offer, or if no National Best
Offer, not more than the Designated Percentage away from the last
reported sale received from the responsible single plan securities
information processor. In the event that the National Best Offer (or if
no National Best Offer, the last reported sale) decreases to a level
that would cause the offer interest of the Two-Sided Obligation to be
more than the Defined Limit away from the National Best Offer (or if no
National Best Offer, the last reported sale), or if the offer is
executed or cancelled, the Market Maker shall enter new offer interest
at a price not more than the Designated Percentage away from the then
current National Best Offer (or if no National Best Offer, the last
reported sale), or identify to the Exchange current resting interest
that satisfies the Two-Sided Obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ``Designated Percentage'' is: (i) 8% for securities
included in the S&P 500[supreg] Index, Russell 1000[supreg] Index,
and a pilot list of Exchange Traded Products (``Tier 1
Securities''); (ii) 28% for all NMS stocks that are not Tier 1
Securities with a price equal to or greater than $1 (``Tier 2
Securities''); (iii) 30% for all NMS stocks that are not Tier 1
Securities with a price less than $1 (``Tier 3 Securities''), except
that between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. and between 3:35 p.m. and the
close of trading, the Designated Percentage is 20% for Tier 1
Securities, 28% for Tier 2 Securities, and 30% for Tier 3
Securities. The Designated Percentage for rights and warrants is
30%. The pilot list of Exchange Traded Products for Tier 1
Securities is attached as Exhibit 3 to this filing.
    \9\ Determined by the Exchange in accordance with its procedures
for determining Protected Quotations under SEC Rule 600 under
Regulation NMS.
    \10\ The ``Defined Limit'' is 9.5% for Tier 1 Securities, 29.5%
for Tier 2 Securities, and 31.5% for Tier 3 Securities, except that
between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. and between 3:35 p.m. and the close
of trading, the Defined Limit is 21.5% for Tier 1 Securities, 29.5%
for Tier 2 Securities, and 31.5% for Tier 3 Securities.
    \11\ Nothing in the rule precludes a PSX Market Maker from
quoting at price levels that are closer to the National Best Bid and
Offer than the levels required by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pricing obligations established by the Rule apply during
regular trading hours (i.e., 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.); but do not
commence during any trading day until after the first regular way
transaction on the primary listing market in the security. Moreover,
the obligations are suspended during a trading halt, suspension, or
pause, and do not re-commence until after the first regular way
transaction on the primary listing market in the security following
such halt, suspension, or pause, as reported by the responsible single
plan processor.
    The individual MPID assigned to a member organization to meet its
Two-Sided Obligation pursuant to the Rule, or Rule 3223,\12\ is
referred to as the member organization's ``Primary MPID.'' Market
Makers and ECNs may request the use of additional MPIDs that shall be
referred to as ``Supplemental MPIDs.'' A Market Maker may request the
use of Supplemental MPIDs for displaying Attributable Quotes/Orders
\13\ in the PSX Quotation Montage for any security in which it is
registered and meets the obligations set forth in subparagraph (1) of
this rule. An ECN may request the use of Supplemental MPIDs for
displaying Attributable Quotes/Orders in the PSX Quotation Montage for
any security in which it meets the obligations set forth in Rule 3223.
A Market Maker or ECN that ceases to meet the obligations appurtenant
to its Primary MPID in any security shall not be permitted to use a
Supplemental MPID for any purpose in that security.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ An existing rule governing the use of PSX by electronic
communications networks (``ECNs'') and other forms of alternative
trading systems to display orders.
    \13\ A Quote/Order whose price and size is displayed next to the
Market Maker's MPID in the publicly disseminated quotation montage.
    \14\ Market Makers and ECNs that are permitted the use of
Supplemental MPIDs for displaying Attributable Quotes/Orders are
subject to the same rules applicable to their first quotation, with
two exceptions: (a) The continuous two-sided quote requirement and
excused withdrawal procedures do not apply to Market Makers'
Supplemental MPIDs; and (b) Supplemental MPIDs may not be used by
Market Makers to enter stabilizing bids pursuant to Rule 3214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in new Rule 3213(c), if a PSX Market Maker's ability to
enter or update quotations is impaired, the market maker must
immediately contact PSX Market Operations to request a withdrawal of
its quotations. If the market maker elects to remain in PSX when its
ability to update quotations is impaired, it must nevertheless execute
orders presented for execution against its disseminated quotations.
    The procedures for withdrawal of quotations are governed by
proposed new Rule 3219. In general, a market maker that wishes to
withdraw quotations in a security must contact the Exchange's
MarketWatch Department to obtain excused withdrawal status prior to
withdrawing its quotations. Withdrawals of quotations shall be granted
by MarketWatch only upon satisfying one of the conditions specified in
this Rule. An exception to the requirement for prior approval will
exist for withdrawal based on a PSX Market Maker's systemic equipment
problems, such as defects in software or hardware systems or
connectivity problems associated with the circuits connecting PSX
systems with the PSX Market Maker's systems. In that case, the market
maker must promptly contact Exchange Market Operations and may receive
excused withdrawal status for up to five (5) business days (unless
extended by Exchange Market Operations).
    For other circumstances beyond the market maker's control, a PSX
Market Maker that wishes to withdraw quotations must contact the
Exchange's MarketWatch Department to obtain excused withdrawal status
prior to withdrawing its quotations.\15\ Excused withdrawal status
based on illness, vacations or physical circumstances beyond the PSX
Market Maker's control may be granted for up to five (5) business days,
unless extended by MarketWatch. Excused withdrawal status based on
investment activity or advice of legal counsel, accompanied by a
representation that the condition necessitating the withdrawal of
quotations is not permanent in nature, may, upon written request, be
granted for not more than sixty (60) days. The withdrawal of quotations
because of pending news, a sudden influx of orders or price changes, or
to effect transactions with competitors shall not normally constitute
acceptable reasons for granting excused withdrawal status, unless the
Exchange has initiated a

trading halt for market makers in the security, pursuant to Rule 3100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ It should be noted that because PSX does not currently, and
does not at this time propose to list securities, the applicable
rule does not establish different standards for excused withdrawals
depending the listing venue of the security in question. Cf. NASDAQ
Stock Market Rule 4619 (imposing different standards for excused
withdrawal of quotations in NASDAQ-listed securities and securities
listed on other exchanges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excused withdrawal status may also be granted to a PSX Market Maker
that fails to maintain a clearing arrangement with a registered
clearing agency or with a member of such an agency and is withdrawn
from participation in the trade reporting service of PSX, thereby
terminating its registration as a PSX Market Maker; provided, however,
that if the Exchange finds that the market maker's failure to maintain
a clearing arrangement is voluntary, the withdrawal of quotations will
be considered voluntary and unexcused. PSX Market Makers that fail to
maintain a clearing relationship will have their PSX system status set
to ``suspend'' and be thereby prevented from entering, or executing
against, any quotes/orders in the system.
    Proposed Rule 3220 will govern voluntary termination of a PSX
Market Maker's registration. A market maker may voluntarily terminate
its registration in a security by withdrawing its two-sided quotation
from PSX. A PSX Market Maker that voluntarily terminates its
registration in a security may not re-register as a market maker for
one (1) business day.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ By contrast, under the NASDAQ Stock Market's corresponding
rule (NASDAQ Rule 4620), a market maker withdrawing from a NASDAQ-
listed security may not re-register in that security for a period of
20 days, but is subject to a one-day exclusion for securities not
listed on NASDAQ. Because PSX does not currently, and does not at
this time propose to list securities, the proposed one-day exclusion
period is comparable to the rule in effect at NASDAQ for securities
traded on an unlisted trading privileges basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the above, a PSX Market Maker that accidentally
withdraws as a PSX Market Maker may be reinstated immediately if:
     The PSX Market Maker notified the Exchange's MarketWatch
Department of the accidental withdrawal as soon as practicable under
the circumstances, but within at least one hour of such withdrawal, and
immediately thereafter provided written notification of the withdrawal
and reinstatement request;
     It is clear that the withdrawal was inadvertent and the
market maker was not attempting to avoid its market making obligations;
and
     The PSX Market Maker's firm would not exceed the following
reinstatement limitations: (i) For firms that simultaneously made
markets in less than 250 stocks during the previous calendar year, the
firm can receive no more than two (2) reinstatements per year; (ii) for
firms that simultaneously made markets in 250 or more but less than 500
stocks during the previous calendar year, the firm can receive no more
than three (3) reinstatements per year; and (iii) for firms that
simultaneously made markets in 500 or more stocks during the previous
calendar year, the firm can receive no more than six (6) reinstatements
per year.

Factors that the Exchange will consider in granting a reinstatement
under the rule include, but are not limited to: The number of
accidental withdrawals by the PSX Market Maker in the past, as compared
with PSX Market Makers making markets in a comparable number of stocks;
the similarity between the symbol of the stock that the PSX Market
Maker intended to withdraw from and the symbol of the stock that the
PSX Market Maker actually withdrew from; market conditions at the time
of the withdrawal; whether, given the market conditions at the time of
the withdrawal, the withdrawal served to reduce the exposure of the
market maker's position in the security at the time of the withdrawal
to market risk; and the timeliness with which the PSX Market Maker
notified MarketWatch of the error.
    A market maker will not be deemed to have voluntarily terminated
its registration in a security by voluntarily withdrawing its two-sided
quotation from PSX if the PSX Market Maker's two-sided quotation in the
subject security is withdrawn by the Exchange's systems due to issuer
corporate action related to a dividend, payment or distribution, or due
to a trading halt, and one of the following conditions is satisfied:
The PSX Market Maker enters a new two-sided quotation prior to the
close of the regular market session on the same day when the Exchange's
systems withdrew such a quotation; the PSX Market Maker enters a new
two-sided quotation on the day when trading resumes following a trading
halt, or, if the resumption of trading occurs when the market is not in
regular session, the PSX Market Maker enters a new two-sided quotation
prior to the opening of the next regular market session; or upon
request from the market maker, MarketWatch authorizes the market maker
to enter a new two-sided quotation, provided that MarketWatch receives
the market maker's request prior to the close of the regular market
session on the next regular trading day after the day on which the
market maker became eligible to re-enter a quotation and determines
that the market maker was not attempting to avoid its market making
obligations by failing to re-enter such a quotation earlier.
    Under Rule [sic] 3219 and 3220, the Market Operations Review
Committee will have jurisdiction over proceedings brought by market
makers seeking review of the denial of an excused withdrawal, the
conditions imposed upon a market maker's re-entry, and the denial of a
reinstatement following an unexcused withdrawal.
    With respect to securities that are the subject of offerings
governed by SEC Regulation M,\17\ the Exchange is also proposing to
adopt several rules. Proposed Rule 3214 governs the entry of
stabilizing bids, providing that a PSX Market Maker that intends to
stabilize the price of a security that is a subject or reference
security under SEC Rule 101 under Regulation M \18\ must submit a
request to the Exchange's MarketWatch Department for entry of a one-
sided bid identified as a stabilizing bid. Proposed Rule 3219(e)
governs excused withdrawals based on status as a distribution
participant or affiliated purchaser within the meaning of Regulation M.
The rule provides that a PSX Market Maker may be excused from two-sided
quoting obligations in circumstances where a withdrawal of its
quotations is necessary to comply with Regulation M by providing
appropriate notice to the Exchange's MarketWatch Department. Proposed
Rule 3224 governs imposition of penalty bids or engaging in syndicate
covering transactions, providing that a PSX Market Maker acting as a
manager (or in a similar capacity) of a distribution of a security that
is a subject or reference security under SEC Rule 101 under Regulation
M \19\ must provide appropriate notice to the Corporate Financing
Department of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')
of its transactions pursuant to SEC Rule 104 under Regulation M \20\
prior to imposing the penalty bid or engaging in the first covering
transaction. Proposed Rule 3203 adopts associated definitions of terms
used in, or in reference to, Regulation M. Although the Exchange
expects these rules to be used rarely, if at all, given the fact that
the Exchange does not intend to list securities, the rules may have
applicability in limited circumstances where an Exchange member
organization is acting in support of an offering on another exchange or
is affiliated with a member of another exchange that is participating
in an offering. Accordingly, the Exchange is adopting rules on these
topics that are materially identical to

corresponding rules on NASDAQ and BX, with the exception of rules
pertaining to compliance with SEC Rule 103 under Regulation M,\21\
which, by its terms, applies exclusively to the NASDAQ Stock Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ SEC Rules 100-105 under Regulation M, 17 CFR 242.100-
242.105.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.101.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ 17 CFR 242.104.
    \21\ 17 CFR 242.103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx is also amending Rule 3230, which governs trading in
Commodity-Related Securities,\22\ to adopt provisions governing the
activities of marker [sic] makers in Commodity-Related Securities. The
rule is designed to ensure that trading in a Commodity-Related Security
by a market maker is not improperly influenced by information about
trading in the underlying commodity from within the market maker's
firm. Under the rule, which is identical to rules in effect [sic]
NASDAQ and BX, a member organization acting as a registered market
maker in a Commodity-Related Security must establish adequate
information barriers when such market maker engages in inter-
departmental communications.\23\ For purposes of a Commodity-Related
Security only, ``inter-departmental communications'' include
communications to other departments within the same firm or the firm's
affiliates that involve trading in commodities, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or
other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A ``Commodity-Related Security'' is a security that is
issued by a trust, partnership, commodity pool or similar entity
that invests, directly or through another entity, in an combination
of commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts,
forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives, or
the value of which is determined by the value of commodities,
futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts,
commodity swaps, or other related derivatives.
    \23\ Member organizations should refer to NASD/NYSE Joint Memo
on Chinese Wall Policies and Procedures (NASD Notice to Members 91-
45) for guidance on the `` `minimum elements' of adequate Chinese
Wall policy and procedures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member organization acting as a registered market maker in a
Commodity-Related Security must file with the Exchange's Regulation
Department in a manner prescribed by such Department and keep current a
list identifying all accounts for trading in commodities, futures
contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity
swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related
Security, in which the market maker holds an interest, over which it
may exercise investment discretion, or in which it shares in the
profits and losses. Moreover, a member organization acting as a
registered market maker in a Commodity-Related Security may not act or
register as a market maker in any commodities, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or
other related derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security.
    A member organization acting as a registered market maker in a
Commodity-Related Security must make available to the Exchange's
Regulation Department such books, records or other information
pertaining to transactions by such entity or registered or non-
registered employees affiliated with such entity for its or their own
accounts for trading commodities, futures contracts, options on futures
contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related
derivatives underlying such Commodity-Related Security, as may be
requested by the Regulation Department. Finally, in connection with
trading a Commodity-Related Security or commodities, futures contracts,
options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or
other related derivatives underlying a Commodity-Related Security, the
member organization acting as a market maker in a Commodity-Related
Security may not use any material nonpublic information received from
any person associated with the member organization or employee of such
person regarding trading by such person or employee in the commodities,
futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts,
commodity swaps, or other related derivatives underlying such
Commodity-Related Security.
    In furtherance of allowing market making on PSX, Phlx is also
amending Rule 3301 to provide for attributable quotes and orders (i.e.,
trading interest displayed with price and size next to a market maker's
MPID); to specify that quotations may include a non-displayed reserve
size in order to replenish the displayed portion of a quotation when it
is reduced to a size of less than one round lot; \24\ to add
definitions of ``PSX Market Maker'' and ``Quote''; and to provide that
attributable trading interest will be displayed via PSX data feeds,
with attribution to the Participant's MPID, along with non-attributable
interest. As provided in proposed new Rule 3306(b), PSX Market Makers
and Equities ECNs will be permitted to enter Quotes from 8:00 a.m. to 5
p.m. When open, Quotes will be processed as System Hours Day Orders
(i.e., orders that remain open while the PSX System is open, but do not
remain on the book overnight). Phlx is also making conforming changes
to the following existing rules by adding references to quotations,
quotes/orders, market makers, and/or certain activities or market
makers, as appropriate to reflect the scope of PSX's rules to embrace
market making and quoting activity in addition to order entry: Rule
3100 (Trading Halts on PSX); Rule 3201 (Scope); Rule 3213(b) (Firm
Orders and Quotations); Rule 3221 (Suspension and Termination of
Quotations and Order Entry); Rule 3225 (Obligation to Provide
Information); Rule 3226 (Limitation of Liability); Rule 3301(g) (Order
Size); Rule 3306 (Entry and Display of Quotes and Orders); and Rule
3310 (Anonymity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A new timestamp is applied when the order is replenished
from reserve size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimum Quantity Orders
    Phlx is proposing minor modifications to the operation of PSX's
Minimum Quantity Order, such that it will be fully consistent with the
comparable orders of NASDAQ and BX. ``Minimum Quantity Orders'' are
orders that will not execute unless a specified minimum quantity of
shares can be obtained. A Minimum Quantity Order provides a means by
which a market participant may avoid partial executions of orders at
sizes that it considers inadequate to achieve its purposes. For
example, a market participant seeking to sell a large position in a
trading session with high volatility may use the order type to avoid
selling only a small portion of the order at the price it considers
acceptable. A Minimum Quantity Order that posts to [sic] PSX book will
be a Non-Displayed Order, and upon entry must have a size and a minimum
quantity condition of at least one round lot. In the event that the
shares remaining in the size of the order following a partial execution
thereof are less than the minimum quantity specified by the market
participant entering the order, the minimum quantity value of the order
will be reduced to the number of shares remaining.
    Thus, for example, if a market participant entered a Minimum
Quantity Order with a size of 1,000 and a minimum quantity of 500, and
the order was marketable against a 600 share order on the book, the
remaining 400 shares of the Minimum Quantity Order would post to the
book with a minimum quantity restriction of 400 shares. Under current
PSX rules, if the size of a Minimum Quantity Order is reduced to less
than one round lot due to a partial execution, the minimum quantity
condition on the order will be removed. PSX proposes to delete this
condition, which was formerly necessary to ensure that the order would

not have a higher execution priority under PSX's execution algorithm
than other non-displayed odd-lot orders solely by virtue of its minimum
quantity condition. In all other respects, the operation of the order
will remain unchanged.
Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order
    Phlx is adopting as a new order type the Midpoint Peg Post-Only
Order.\25\ Like a regular Midpoint Peg Order, a Midpoint Peg Post-Only
Order is a non-displayed order that is priced at the midpoint between
the national best bid and best offer (``NBBO'') (as determined using
the consolidated tape). However, like a Post-Only Order, the Midpoint
Peg Post-Only Order does not remove liquidity from PSX upon entry if it
would lock a non-displayed order on PSX. Rather, the Midpoint Peg Post-
Only Order will post and lock the pre-existing order, but will remain
undisplayed.\26\ For example, if the NBBO is $1.10 bid and $1.11 offer,
and there is a non-displayed Midpoint Peg Order to buy on the book at
$1.105, an incoming Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order to sell will also post
to the book at $1.105 and will not execute. By contrast, a regular
Midpoint Peg Order would execute against the posted order at $1.105. If
the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would cross a pre-existing order,
however, the crossing orders will execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The order on PSX will be identical to the comparable order
on NASDAQ. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64430 (May 6,
2011), 76 FR 27699 (May 12, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-059); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68015 (October 9, 2012), 77 FR 63368
(October 16, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-111).
    \26\ SEC Rule 610(d) under Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.610(d),
restricts displayed quotations that lock protected quotations in NMS
Stocks, but does not apply to non-displayed trading interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders that post to the book and lock a pre-
existing non-displayed order will execute against an incoming order
only if the price of the incoming buy (sell) order is higher (lower)
than the price of the pre-existing order. This restriction ensures that
the non-displayed Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order will not execute before
an order already on the book unless the incoming order against which it
executes has price priority over the already posted order. For example,
if the NBBO is $1.10 bid and $1.11 offer, and there is a non-displayed
Midpoint Peg Order to buy on the book at $1.105, an incoming Midpoint
Peg Post-Only Order to sell will also post to the book at $1.105 and
will not execute. If another Midpoint Peg Order to buy is entered, it
would also post to the book, rather than executing against the Midpoint
Peg Post-Only Order. On the other hand, an order to buy at $1.11 would
execute against the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, receiving $0.005
price improvement. Thus, the order provides a means by which a market
participant may offer price improvement in exchange for receiving
greater certainty with respect to its trading costs.
    If a Midpoint Peg Order and a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order are
locked, and a Midpoint Peg Order is entered on the same side of the
market as the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, the new order will execute
against the original Midpoint Peg Order. Thus, in the above example, if
a Midpoint Peg Order to buy at $1.105 is locked by a Midpoint Peg Post-
Only Order to sell at $1.105, a subsequent Midpoint Peg Order to sell
at $1.105 would execute against the original buy order. This is the
case because the market participant entering the Midpoint Peg Post-Only
Order has expressed its intention not to execute against posted
liquidity, and therefore cedes execution priority to the new order.
    A Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order will only be posted to the book at a
price of more than $1. Accordingly, if the midpoint between the NBBO
for a particular stock is $1 or less, all Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders
for that stock will be rejected or cancelled, as applicable. This
limitation reflects the fact that the difference between the inside
market and the midpoint for stocks at this price level is likely to be
extremely small, and therefore the price improvement opportunities
associated with the order in such stocks are unlikely to justify making
the order available.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NASDAQ's corresponding rule includes language stipulating
the treatment of posted Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders for purposes
of calculating the best bid and offer within NASDAQ under rules
governing the opening cross (NASDAQ Rule 4752), halt and imbalance
cross (NASDAQ Rule 4753), and closing cross (NASDAQ Rule 4754).
Because PSX does not have comparable rules, this language is omitted
from the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx believes that the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order will serve a
valid purpose in the current market environment. Although SEC Rule 610
\28\ limits access fees, market participants remain focused on their
trading costs, and in a pricing environment characterized by fees on
one side of a trade being used to fund rebates on the other side,\29\
it is entirely understandable that some market participants may wish to
structure their trading activity in a manner that is more likely to
avoid a fee and earn a rebate. In this respect, the order is
conceptually similar to a limit order: just as a limit order allows
market participants to control the price that they will pay or receive
for a stock, the proposed new order will allow market participants to
exercise greater control over the fees associated with order execution.
Moreover, the order type will operate in a manner calculated to require
Participants posting the order generally to provide price improvement
in order to justify the ability to earn a rebate. Thus, as long as a
Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order is locking a pre-existing Midpoint Order,
the order can execute only if it offers price improvement. By means of
price improvement, the market participant effectively shares a portion
of its rebate with the counterparty with whom it is matched, thereby
reducing its trading costs as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 242.610.
    \29\ It should be noted that some markets, such as NASDAQ OMX
BX, the BATS-Y Exchange, the EDGA Exchange, and CBSX, feature fees
for liquidity providers and rebates for liquidity takers, while all
other cash equities markets now have a taker fee/maker rebate
structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-Only Orders
    Phlx proposes to modify the functionality associated with its
existing Post-Only Order on PSX.\30\ Currently, if a Post-Only Order
would lock or cross an order on PSX at the time of entry, the order is
re-priced and displayed by the System to one minimum price increment
(i.e., $0.01 or $0.0001) below the current low offer (for bids) or
above the current best bid (for offers). Thus, if the best bid and best
offer on the PSX book were $10.00 x $10.05, and a market participant
entered a Post-Only Order to buy at $10.05, the order would be re-
priced and displayed at $10.04. This aspect of the functionality of the
order is not changing.\31\ Under the

proposed change, if a Post-Only Order would cross an order on the
System, the order will be repriced as described above unless the value
of price improvement associated with executing against a resting order
equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the
value of any rebate that would be provided if the order posted to the
book and subsequently provided liquidity, in which case the order will
execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ An identical change was mistakenly filed by Phlx
(Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64563 (May 27, 2011), 76 FR
32255 (June 3, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-70)) at the same time as the
change was made by NASDAQ (Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64552
(May 26, 2011), 76 FR 31998 (June 2, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-070)),
with the error being corrected through a subsequent filing
(Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67351 (July 5, 2012), 77 FR
40922 (July 11, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-84)). The prior filing to make
this change was mistaken because the proposed change was
incompatible with PSX's price/size/pro rata algorithm. With PSX's
move to a price/time algorithm, the change to the functioning of the
Post-Only Order is now possible.
    \31\ In addition, if the order would lock or cross a protected
quotation of another market center, the order will be accepted at
the locking price (i.e., the current low offer (for bids) or to
[sic] the current best bid (for offers)) and displayed by the System
to one minimum price increment (i.e., $0.01 or $0.0001) below the
current low offer (for bids) or above the current best bid (for
offers). Thus, if the national best bid and offer, as displayed on
another market center, was $10 x $10.05, an order to buy at $10.05
or higher would be accepted at the locking price of $10.05, but
would be displayed at $10.04. Subsequently, an incoming order to
sell at $10.05 or lower would be matched against the Post-Only buy
order. In this case, the incoming sell order would receive price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided by Rule 3307, in such an instance the price improvement
accrues to the party entering the order that takes liquidity. Thus, if
a sell order is on the book at $10 and a Post-Only Order to buy at
$10.01 is entered, the Post-Only Order will execute at $10.
    The modified Post-Only Order will serve to allow the market
participant entering the order to post its order at its desired price,
unless the amount of price improvement makes execution of the order
economically advantageous to the entering participant. Thus, the
revised order type is designed to provide market participants with
better control over their execution costs and to provide them with a
means to offer price improvement opportunities to other market
participants.
Minimum Life Order
    Phlx is proposing to eliminate PSX's Minimum Life Order. The
Minimum Life Order is a Displayed Order that may not be cancelled for a
period of 100 milliseconds following its receipt. The order type was
not used by the vast majority of PSX's market participants, and is not
currently offered by any other national securities exchange.
Accordingly, PSX believes that its elimination will not have any
material effect on market participants or on the cash equities markets
in general.
Price To Comply Post Order
    Phlx is proposing to introduce the Price To Comply Post Order on
PSX, with terms and conditions identical to those found on NASDAQ and
BX. The Price To Comply Post Order provides a straightforward means by
which market makers and others may post liquidity at or near the inside
market in compliance with the restrictions on locked and crossed
markets and trade-throughs under Rules 610(d) and 611 under Regulation
NMS.\32\ If, at the time of its entry, a Price To Comply Post Order
would lock or cross the Protected Quotation of another trading center
or would execute at a price inferior to the Protected Quotation of
another trading center, the order will be re-priced and displayed to
one minimum price increment (i.e., $0.01 or $0.0001, depending on the
price of the security being traded) below the current low offer (for
bids) or to one penny above the current best bid (for offers). Price to
Comply Post Orders are not routable.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 242.610(d), 611.
    \33\ With respect to the foregoing changes to the availability
of order types, Phlx is amending Rule 3305 to reflect the changes in
a list of available order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\34\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \35\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed adoption of [sic] price/time execution algorithm will
allow PSX to operate in a manner consistent with every other national
securities exchange that trades cash equities securities, a market
model that the Commission has repeatedly determined to be consistent
with the Act.\36\ Thus, the change with regard to the execution
algorithm will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system by making PSX's
functionality more consistent with that of other exchanges. Similarly,
the proposed rules regarding maker [sic] making, including the
obligations of market makers to adhere to specific quoting and pricing
obligations, have previously been determined by the Commission to be
consistent with the Act.\37\ Specifically, in approving rules governing
market maker quoting and pricing obligations such as those proposed by
Phlx, the Commission found that ``the proposed rule should assure that
quotations submitted by market makers to an exchange or FINRA's ADF,
and displayed to market participants, bear some relationship to the
prevailing market price, and thus should promote fair and orderly
markets and the protection of investors.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54155 (July
14, 2006), 71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR
80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48).
    \37\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128
(January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131)
(approving NASDAQ market maker rules as part of its registration as
a national securities exchange); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59154 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-
2008-48); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63255 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69484, 69485 (November 12, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-025, SR-
BX-2010-66, SR-CBOE-2010-087, SR-CHX-2010-22, SR-FINRA-2010-049, SR-
NASDAQ-2010-115, SR-NSX-2010-12, SR-NYSE-2010-69, SR-NYSEAmex-2010-
96, SR-NYSEArca-2010-83) (approving corresponding marketwide rules
with respect to market maker quoting and pricing obligations)
(``2010 Order'').
    \38\ 2010 Order, 75 FR at 69485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to order type functionality will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
the national market system because they will conform PSX's rules to
functionality that is already in use and accepted by market
participants at other exchanges. Specifically, with regard to the
change to the Minimum Quantity Order, the proposed change will allow
the operation of the order to better reflect the intention of the
market participants entering the order, since it will allow a minimum
quantity condition to continue to attach to an order at a size below
one round lot. The change will also make the operation of the order
conform to functionality that was implemented on an immediately
effective basis on NASDAQ and BX.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65536 (October 12,
2011), 76 FR 64411 (October 18, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-140);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65535 (October 12, 2011), 76 FR
64416 (October 18, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposed Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order is identical
to the order that is operative on NASDAQ, and which was introduced and
modified through immediately effective filings.\40\ As described in the
original NASDAQ filing with respect to the order, the Midpoint Peg
Post-Only Order is designed to provide market participants with better
control over their execution costs and to provide a means to offer
price improvement opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64430 (May 6,
2011), 76 FR 27699 (May 12, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-059); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68015 (October 9, 2012), 77 FR 63368
(October 16, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modified Post Only Order, which adopts changes filed by NASDAQ
and BX on an immediately effective basis,\41\

is similarly designed to provide market participants with better
control over their execution costs. Specifically, the changes will
ensure that a Post Only Order will post to the PSX book only in
circumstances where an immediate execution of the order would not be
more economically advantageous to the market participant that entered
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64552 (May 26, 2011),
76 FR 31998 (June 2, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-070); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 64615 (June 7, 2011), 76 FR 34284 (June 13, 2011)
(SR-BX-2011-033).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Price to Comply Post Order is consistent with the Act
because it provides market makers and other market participants with a
straightforward mechanism to enter an order that reprices to ensure
that it does not lock or cross or trade through the Protected Quotation
of another market center. The rule has previously been approved for use
at NASDAQ and BX.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54155 (July 14, 2006),
71 FR 41291 (July 20, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-001); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR 80468
(December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Phlx believes that the proposed elimination of the Minimum
Life Order is consistent with the Act because the order has not been
widely used and has not been adopted at any other exchange.
Accordingly, Phlx believes that offering an order of this nature is not
a required aspect of the operation of a national securities exchange.

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, since
its introduction with a price/size execution algorithm, PSX has not
been a significant competitor in the market for execution of cash
equities orders, with a market share generally below 1 percent of total
consolidated volume. By means of the changes proposed in this rule
filing, Phlx hopes to enhance PSX's competitiveness by offering
functionality that is more consistent with that offered by other
national securities exchanges. In light of the highly competitive
nature of these markets, however, PSX will be successful in attracting
additional order flow only if its overall offering of functionality and
pricing is successful in convincing market participants to direct order
flow to it, rather than the larger number of exchanges and alternative
trading systems that compete with it. Accordingly, Phlx does not
believe that the changes proposed herein will impose any burden on
competition, because they do not provide any means through which PSX
may diminish the free choice with regard to order routing decisions
that exists in the market. To the extent, however, that the changes
make PSX a more attractive trading venue, they have the potential to
enhance competition by providing market participants with additional
choices when making such decisions.

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 45 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 Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-24 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-2013-24. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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-Phlx-2013-24 and should be
submitted on or before April 16, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-06880 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36685-36686]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10359-044]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, WA ; Notice of
Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

July 17, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 10359-044.
    c. Date Filed: June 19, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County,
WA.
    e. Name of Project: Youngs Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: When constructed, the proposed project will be located
on Youngs Creek, in Snohomish County, Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Steve Klein, General Manager, Snohomish
County PUD No. 1, 2320 California Street, P.O. Box 1107, Everett,
Washington 98206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Anthony DeLuca, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: August 18, 2009.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    All documents (original and eight copies) filed by paper should be
sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-10359-044) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request:
    (i) Amendment to Project Design: The Public Utility District No. 1
of Snohomish County proposes to decrease the project's rated turbine
capacity from the originally licensed 8.3 MW (11,067 horsepower) to 7.5
MW (10,000 horsepower), and to change the type of turbine to a
horizontal shaft, 2-jet impulse Pelton turbine connected to a
synchronous type generator rated at 8,333 kVA at a 0.9 power factor
(7,500 kW). This decrease in the turbine's capacity will decrease the
project's maximum hydraulic capacity from 140 cfs to 120 cfs. The
licensee also plans to change the operating voltage of the project
transmission line to 12.5 kilovolts as originally licensed, correct the
length of transmission line in the original license from 6.1 miles to
8.2 miles, and install certain segments of transmission line on
existing overhead distribution poles while installing the remaining
segments of the transmission line underground. The transmission line
will continue to follow the alignment as provided in the current
license.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in

the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17692 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 67 (Friday, April 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18457-18459]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07333]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0001; FRL-10021-86-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate
Transport Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Idaho (Idaho or
the State) that addresses the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In
this action, EPA is determining that Idaho will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state, the Fort Hall
Reservation, or the Kalispel Reservation. Therefore, EPA is approving
Idaho's December 24, 2015 SIP submission as meeting the interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This action is effective on May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0001. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

    On October 5, 2020, EPA proposed to approve Idaho's December 24,
2015 SIP submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
(85 FR 62679). Please refer to the October 5, 2020 notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for an explanation of the CAA requirements, a
detailed analysis of the submission, and EPA's proposed rationale for
approval. The public comment period for this NPRM ended on November 4,
2020.
    EPA notes that since the publication of the NPRM, we have
determined that the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel
Reservation is eligible to be treated in the same manner as an affected
downwind state (TAS) for purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and
126.\1\ The Kalispel Reservation is located approximately 16 km from
the Idaho border, surrounded entirely by the State of Washington. EPA's
original evaluation did not specifically evaluate potential air quality
impacts of sources in Idaho to the Kalispel Reservation. However, EPA's
technical evaluation of Washington State would have identified sources
of SO2 near the Kalispel Reservation that meet the
evaluation criteria described in the NPRM. We have specifically re-
examined that information with respect to the Kalispel Reservation and
affirm that consideration of the Kalispel Reservation as an affected
downwind state does not impact our analysis completed at proposal, and
therefore does not impact our findings with respect to the adequacy of
Idaho's SIP for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) as it relates to
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 12, 2021, EPA determined that the Kalispel Tribe
is eligible for treatment in the same manner as a state for CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) (86 FR 9334).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed approval.
While stating that the commenter had ``no objection'' to the approval
of Idaho's SIP, the commenter expressed concern ``about a possible
variable in the equation that might be currently overlooked.'' Citing
footnote 8 of EPA's proposed action, the commenter expressed concern
about EPA's analytical approach that limited the analysis to Idaho
sources emitting more than 100 tons per year of SO2. The
commenter is concerned that, ``while one source emitting less than 100
tpy may have little effect on neighboring states attainment of NAAQS,
the aggregate effect of all those Idaho sources combined may have a
very real effect and contribute significantly to its neighboring states
non-attainment of NAAQS.''
    The commenter acknowledged EPA's assertion that SO2 is
expected to dissipate within 50 km of a point source. However, without
citing any specific evidence of impermissible impacts from such smaller
sources, the commenter posited that ``it may be possible that a smaller
source of SO2 emission, if not accounted for, may be
contributing to the non-attainment of a downwind state. It may also be
possible that the aggregate effect of these smaller unaccounted for
sources may be contributing to far more SO2 in the air than
currently known.'' The commenter urged EPA to consider ways to take
sources of SO2 with releases less than 100 tpy into account
in some way that ``will not create undue burdens and costs''. The
commenter suggests that increased monitoring at these smaller sources
would reduce uncertainty in whether the sources are contributing to air
quality problems in neighboring states and tribal areas, but
acknowledges that extensive monitoring at small sources may not be
practical. They propose EPA considering smaller sources in their
notices could be sufficient enough to evaluate their air quality
impacts.
    Response: EPA continues to believe that the weight of evidence
analysis provided in the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential
downwind impact from Idaho to neighboring states. In its submission,
Idaho identified the largest SO2 emission sources in the
State, explaining that because ``SO2 will most likely either
disperse in the atmosphere or chemically react to form a secondary
pollutant within a few miles of the source, only large pollutant
sources in proximity to the state boundary would be expected to

significantly contribute to or interfere with air quality in adjacent
states.'' In considering sources emitting less than 100 tpy of
SO2 at proposal, EPA independently stated that ``in the
absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger
source or unusual physical factors, Idaho sources emitting less than
100 tpy can be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.'' Additionally,
emissions from sources greater than 100 tpy account for 88 percent of
Idaho's statewide SO2 emissions from point sources, and thus
are appropriate to evaluate for purposes of determining whether there
is any emissions activity within the State that is in violation of the
good neighbor provision. EPA continues to find that this is an
appropriate assessment of upwind SO2 sources' downwind
impacts on neighboring states. EPA's analysis includes the following
factors: (1) Ambient air quality data for active SO2
monitors in Idaho or in a neighboring or downwind state within 50 km of
the Idaho border, (2) emissions information for SO2 sources
in Idaho emitting greater than 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the
Idaho border, (3) emissions information for SO2 sources in
neighboring or downwind states or tribal areas emitting more than 100
tpy and located within 50 km of the Idaho border, (4) available
modeling and monitoring information for any area within 50 km of the
Idaho border, and (5) SO2 emissions trends in Idaho and
neighboring and downwind states and tribal areas.
    EPA notes that the commenter did not provide a technical analysis
or any additional specific information indicating that sources emitting
100 tpy or less (or an aggregation of sources emitting less than 100
tpy) may have downwind impacts that violate the good neighbor
provision. For these reasons, EPA finds that our analysis of the Idaho
sources in the NPRM, considered alongside other weight of evidence
factors described in that document, support EPA's conclusion that Idaho
has satisfied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Idaho's December 24, 2015 submission as meeting
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885; April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 8, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 6, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable geographic        State
     Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area   submittal date   EPA approval date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport             State-wide.............      12/24/2015  4/9/2021, [Insert   This action
 Requirements for the 2010                                                 Federal Register    addresses CAA
 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.                                                     citation].          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-07333 Filed 4-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 102-103]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1372]

Alec Burlakoff: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an
order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
permanently debarring Alec Burlakoff from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Alec Burlakoff was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Mr. Burlakoff was
given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and was given an
opportunity to request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred.
As of July 24, 2020 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr.
Burlakoff had not responded. Mr. Burlakoff's failure to respond and
request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing
concerning this action.

DATES: This order is applicable January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for special termination of debarment to
the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement, Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857<EMAIL_ADDRESS>240-402-
8743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B))
requires debarment of an individual from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any
drug product under the FD&C Act. On January 23, 2020, Mr. Burlakoff was
convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act when judgment
was entered against him in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, after his plea of guilty, to one count of Racketeering
Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). The pattern of
racketeering activity he was convicted of included engaging in multiple
acts of illegal distribution of a controlled substance (21 U.S.C.
841(a)(1)); mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341); wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343);
honest services mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1346); and, honest
services wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343 and 1346).
    The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Mr. Burlakoff
held executive management positions at Insys Therapeutics Inc. (Insys),
including Regional Sales Manager for the Southeast Region and Vice
President of Sales. Insys is a Delaware Corporation, with headquarters
in Chandler, Arizona. Insys developed and owned a drug called SUBSYS, a
liquid formulation of fentanyl to be applied under the tongue. FDA
approved SUBSYS for the management of breakthrough pain in adult cancer
patients who are already receiving and are already tolerant to opioid
therapy for their underlying persistent cancer pain. From May 2012 and
continuing until December 2015, he participated in a conspiracy whereby
employees of Insys bribed and provided kickbacks to medical
practitioners in various states to get those practitioners to increase
prescribing SUBSYS to their patients, many of whom did not have cancer.
The bribes and kickbacks took various forms to include honoraria for
the practitioners' participation in educational events, payment of the
practitioner's staff salaries, and the completion of office tasks for
the provider performed by Insys employees.
    Mr. Burlakoff and his co-conspirators used pharmacy data acquired
from third parties to identify practitioners who either prescribed
unusually high volumes of rapid-onset opioids, or had demonstrated a
capacity to prescribe unusually large volumes of rapid-onset opioids.
In exchange for bribes and kickbacks to these targeted practitioners,
the practitioners increased the number of new SUBSYS prescriptions they
wrote and increased the dosage and number of units of SUBSYS for new
and existing prescriptions. Many of the targeted practitioner's
patients for

whom they wrote the additional SUBSYS prescriptions did not have
cancer. Mr. Burlakoff, along with his co-conspirators, measured the
effect of the bribes and kickbacks on each practitioner's prescribing
habits and on the revenue that each bribed practitioner generated. Mr.
Burlakoff, along with his co-conspirators, reduced or eliminated bribes
and kickbacks paid to those practitioners who failed to meet the
minimum prescription requirements or failed to generate enough revenue
to justify additional bribes and kickbacks.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Burlakoff by certified
mail on July 16, 2020, a notice proposing to permanently debar him from
providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or
pending drug product application. The proposal was based on a finding,
under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Burlakoff was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. The proposal also
offered Mr. Burlakoff an opportunity to request a hearing, providing
him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the
request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted
an election not to use the opportunity for a hearing and a waiver of
any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Burlakoff received the
proposal on July 25, 2020. He did not request a hearing within the
timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his
opportunity for a hearing and any contentions concerning his debarment
(21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Alec
Burlakoff has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C
Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Burlakoff, is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application, effective (see DATES)
(see sections 306(a)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Mr. Burlakoff, in any capacity during
his debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Burlakoff
provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or
pending drug product application during his period of debarment, he
will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C
Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new
drug application from Mr. Burlakoff during his period of debarment,
other than in connection with an audit under section 306 of the FD&C
Act (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Note that, for purposes of
section 306 of the FD&C Act, a ``drug product'' is defined as a drug
subject to regulation under 21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382 or under
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) (section
201(dd) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(dd)).
    Any application by Mr. Burlakoff for special termination of
debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified
with Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1372 and sent to the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 28, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-29046 Filed 12-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 48465]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15959]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[R01-OW-2023; FRL-11054-01-R1]

Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System
Supervision Program for the State of Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Connecticut is
revising its approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program to
meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of
the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be
submitted by August 28, 2023 to the Regional Administrator at the
address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing
may be denied by the Regional Administrator.
    However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by
this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate
request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does
not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall
become final and effective August 28, 2023.
    Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the
individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a
brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination; (3) information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such hearing; and (4) the signature of the
individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of
an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible
official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following office(s) below. Please call to
arrange a visit.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912

    For state-specific documents:

Connecticut Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Section, 410
Capital Avenue, Hartford, CT 06134

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stafford Madison, U.S. EPA-New
England, Water Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State of Connecticut has adopted
drinking water regulations for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR
10269) promulgated on February 13, 2013. After review of documentation
submitted by the State, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined that the State's rule is no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulation. EPA, therefore, intends to approve
the state's PWSS program revision for this rule.
    Authority: Section 1401 (42 U.S.C 300f) and Section 1413 (42 U.S.C
300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and (40 CFR
142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: July 21, 2023.
David W. Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1--New England.
[FR Doc. 2023-15959 Filed 7-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P