[Federal Register: February 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 22)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5551-5553]
[DOCID:fr03fe10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. OST-2010-0022]
RIN 2105-AD88

Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Airport
Concessions

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is proposing to remove the
``sunset'' provision from its rule governing the airport concessions
disadvantaged business enterprise program. The rule would instead
provide for periodic program reviews. In addition, in the interest of
initiating a program review, the Department is soliciting comments on
any changes that should be made in the rule. These comments would
assist the Department in reviewing the rule and, if warranted,
proposing modifications to it in the future.

DATES: Comments on the proposal to remove the sunset provision must be
received by March 5, 2010. Responses to the request for comments on
potential modifications to the rule must be received by November 1,
2010. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and
DOT Docket ID Number OST-2010-0022) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the
Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2010-0022) for this notice at
the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your
comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
including any

personal information provided and will be available to internet users.
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background
documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Room
W94-302,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the Department issued its final rule
revising its ACDBE rule (49 CFR Part 23) in 2005, the rule included at
section 23.7 a ``sunset'' provision. This provision said unless
extended by the Department, the provisions of Part 23 would terminate
and become inoperative on April 21, 2010. The preamble to the rule
explained the rationale for this provision as follows:

    The Department is introducing a ``sunset'' provision into the
final rule as a way of addressing the durational element of narrow
tailoring. A narrowly-tailored rule is not intended to remain in
effect indefinitely. Rather, the rule should be reviewed
periodically to ensure that it continues to be needed and that it
remains a constitutionally appropriate way of implementing its
objectives. Consequently, this provision states that this rule will
terminate and cease being operative in five years, unless the
Department extends it. We intend, beginning four years from now, to
review the rule to determine whether it should be extended,
modified, or allowed to expire. Of course, the underlying DBE
statute remains in place, and its requirements continue to apply
regardless of the status of this regulation, absent future
Congressional action. (70 FR 14502; March 22, 2005).

The Department believes that it would be useful to begin reviewing the
provisions of Part 23 at this time, for the purpose of determining
what, if any, modifications, are appropriate to improve its operations,
in context of the ``strict scrutiny'' requirements of narrowly
tailoring a program to meet a compelling need to combat discrimination
and its effects. Consequently, with this notice, the Department is
soliciting comments from interested parties concerning any and all
changes to Part 23 they believe would be useful in helping the
Department, airports, ACDBEs, and other airport-related businesses to
achieve the ACDBE program's objectives. The Department will use the
information we receive to assist us in determining whether to issue a
proposed rule to modify the ACDBE regulation. In addition, the
Department is planning to meet with stakeholders, at times and places
to be determined, to discuss potential changes to Part 23.
    However, the Department does not believe it is appropriate to
retain the ``sunset'' provision itself. The Department can, and will,
review the provisions of the rule without this provision being in
place. Moreover, as the preamble discussion for section 23.7 itself
pointed out, the ACDBE program is mandated by statute. The Department
does not believe that it would be meaningful to eliminate a regulation
when its underlying statutory mandate remains applicable to airports
and other participants. Doing so would simply cause confusion and
disruption, making it more difficult for all parties concerned to carry
out their responsibilities under the statute, which is not self-
executing. A regulatory framework is necessary for rational
implementation of the statute. Periodic program reviews by the
Department, as well as consideration from time to time of the
continuing need for the program by Congress, meet the durational
element of narrow tailoring satisfactorily.
    Moreover, the Department is convinced that programs like those in
49 CFR part 23 and its companion DBE rule, 49 CFR part 26, remain
necessary to redress discrimination and its effects in airport programs
and to ensure a level playing field for small businesses owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The
extensive evidence provided to a March 2009 hearing of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on this subject, and the
findings of continuing need for DBE programs in the House-passed
version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill
(H.R. 915), as well as the Department's long-term experience in
operating the program, support this conclusion.
    For these reasons, the Department proposes to amend section 23.7 by
removing the ``sunset'' language and substituting a requirement for
program review. The current notice initiates such a review. The
opportunity for stakeholder input and public comment is part of this
review. The Department seeks comment on whether the final rule should
state a specific interval for future program reviews or whether this
determination should, as stated in the text of the proposed amendment
to the rule, be left to the Department's discretion.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Administrative Procedure Act

    Having considered the potentially high risk of disruption posed by
the current ``sunset'' provision, the Department believes that the
program review approach proposed by this NPRM provides a better way of
achieving the objective of ensuring that the durational element of
narrow tailoring is achieved. In order to ensure that all parties
understand that the program and regulation will continue without
interruption or uncertainty, the Department believes that it is
important to propose removing the provision at this time and
substituting the program review approach at this time. A short comment
period is essential in order to permit a final rule to be issued before
April 21, 2010. We also believe that beginning the program review now,
rather than later, will serve the interests of the program and program
participants well.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or the
Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The rule would not
impose any costs or burdens on grantees or other parties and would keep
in place the opportunity for interested parties to participate in a
program review. It makes no changes in the obligations of any party.
For these reasons, the Department certifies that the rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not create any information collection requirements
covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 23

    Administrative practice and procedures, Airports, Civil rights,
Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation, Minority
business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued at Washington, DC this 20th day of January 2010.
Raymond F. LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

    For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation proposes to amend Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 23, as follows:

PART 23--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 23 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47107; 42 U.S.C. 2000d; 49 U.S.C. 322;
Executive Order 12138.

    2. Section 23.7 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:

Sec.  23.7  Program Reviews.

    In 2010, and thereafter at the discretion of the Secretary, the
Department will initiate a review of the ACDBE program to determine
what, if any, modifications should be made to this Part.

[FR Doc. 2010-2293 Filed 2-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53266-53268]
[DOCID:fr18se07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0071)]

Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under
Federal Employee Protection Statutes; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the information collection requirements for handling of
discrimination complaints under Federal Employee Protection Statutes
contained in regulations at: 29 CFR Part 24, Procedures for the
Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Federal Employee Protection
Statutes; 29 CFR Part 1979, Procedures for Handling Discrimination
Complaints Under Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for
the 21st Century; 29 CFR Part 1980, Procedures for Handling of
Discrimination Complaints Under Section 806 of the Corporate and
Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act 2002; and 29 CFR Part 1981 Procedures for the Handling of
Discrimination Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety and
Improvement Act of 2002 (i.e., These Regulations). These regulations
set forth procedures employees must use to file a complaint with OSHA
alleging that their employer violated a Federal statute that prohibits
retaliation against employees who engage in activities protected by the
various employee protection statutes.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
November 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0071, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0071). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Nilgun Tolek at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nilgun Tolek, Office of Investigative
Assistance, Directorate of Enforcement Programs, OSHA, U.S. Department
of Labor, Room N-3610, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate.
    The Agency is responsible for investigating alleged violations of
``whistleblower'' provisions contained in a number of Federal statutes.
These provisions prohibit retaliation by employers against employees
who report alleged violations of certain laws or regulations.
Accordingly, these provisions prohibit an employer from discharging or
taking any other retaliatory action against an employee with respect to
compensation, or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment
because the employee engages in any of the protected activities
specified by the ``whistleblower'' provisions of these Federal
statutes.
    These Federal statues are covered under the following regulations:
29 CFR Part 24, Procedures for the Handling of Discrimination
Complaints under Federal Employee Protection Statutes (29 CFR Part 24
covers: Safe Water Drinking Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C.
2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6971: Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7622; Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980, 42 U.S.C. 9610); 29 CFR Part 1979, Procedures for Handling
Discrimination Complaints Under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century; 29 CFR Part 1980, Procedures for
Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Section 806 of the
Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; and 29 CFR Part 1981 Procedures for the
Handling of Discrimination Complaints under Section 6 of the Pipeline
Safety and Improvement Act of 2002.
    These regulations specify the procedures that an employee must use
to file a complaint with OSHA alleging that their employer violated a
``whistleblower'' provision for which the Agency has investigative
responsibility. Any employee who believes that such a violation
occurred may file a complaint, or have the complaint filed on their
behalf. While OSHA specifies no particular form for filing a complaint,
these regulations require that a complaint must be in writing and
should include a full statement of the acts and omissions, with
pertinent dates, which are believed to constitute the violation.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Regulations Containing
Procedures for Handling Discrimination Complaints. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Regulations Containing Procedures for Handling
Discrimination Complaints.
    OMB Number: 1218-0236.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Number of Respondents: 390.
    Frequency of Recordkeeping: Once per complaint.
    Average Time per Response: 1 hour.
    Total Annual Hours Requested: 390.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0071). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice

titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's
``UserTips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506, et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 12, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-18314 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 157)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46879-46883]
[DOCID:fr15au06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547; FRL-8210-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Control of Gasoline Volatility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July
14, 2006, establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel
requirement for gasoline distributed in the Southeast Michigan area
which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. Michigan has developed these fuel
requirements to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is
proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the Michigan SIP
because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for Southeast
Michigan to achieve the 8-hr ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0547, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0547. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open
from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo,
Environmental Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action
    A. What Is the Background for This Action?
    B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure?
    C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
    D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)?
    E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?
    F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act
Requirements?
    G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part
2.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action

A. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan
statistical area (CMSA) made up of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw,
Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties was redesignated as an
attainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. At the time the area was
redesignated to attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan
SIP, contingency measures including a 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program.
During the summer of 1995 monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA
recorded violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to
EPA selecting the 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program as one of the
contingency measures to be implemented in the Detroit area to address
the recent NAAQS violation. On May 16, 1996, the State submitted the
low-RVP portion of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The program
required gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA meet a standard of
7.8 psi from June 1 to September 15.
    On May 5, 1997, EPA approved the State's SIP revision to establish
a low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA. As detailed in the
final approval at 62 FR 24341, EPA found the State's demonstration
sufficient to satisfy the necessity requirement of Section 211(c)(4)(C)
of the CAA. Additionally, EPA found that the State's description of the
program and associated enforcement procedures were sufficient for
approval.
    On June 15, 2004, the EPA designated eight counties in Southeast
Michigan as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard (Detroit-Ann
Arbor CMSA--Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties). These counties were initially
classified under the CAA as Moderate, but EPA later reclassified them
as Marginal on September 22, 2004. See 69 FR 56697 (September 22, 2004)
for further details. As part of this reclassification, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments (SEMCOG) committed to a schedule to identify and
implement controls that will help the area attain by the Marginal
attainment date of June 15, 2007.
    To bring this area into attainment, the State is adopting and
implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control
of emissions from cement manufacturing, control of emissions from the
use of consumer/commercial products, and the implementation of a 7.0
psi low-RVP fuels program.
    The State's legislative amendments changed the RVP of a compliant
fuel and became effective on April 6, 2006. The legislative authority,
as amended, requires that, beginning June 1, 2007 through September 15,
2007, and for that period of time each subsequent year, no gasoline may
be sold with an RVP greater that 7.0 psi in Wayne, Macomb, Washtenaw,
Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair and Lenawee counties. The
State's low-RVP requirements can be found in the Motor Fuels Quality
Act (1984 PA 44) as amended by 2006 PA 104 (Act 104) on April 2, 2006.
    The MDEQ submitted this amended low-RVP legislation to EPA as a
revision to the SIP on May 26, 2006. MDEQ also submitted a letter dated
July 14, 2006 requesting that two provisions of the amended Motor Fuels
Quality Act, Sections 9(k) and 9(l), not be incorporated into the
Michigan SIP. In addition, Michigan submitted additional technical
support for the SIP revision, including materials supporting the
State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State fuel controls
pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. By this low-RVP legislation,
Michigan is ensuring that these emission reductions are critical to
Michigan's attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Southeast
Michigan area.

B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure?

    Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, is a measure of a gasoline's
volatility at a

certain temperature and is a measurement of the rate at which gasoline
evaporates and emits VOCs; the lower the RVP, the lower the rate of
evaporation. The RVP of gasoline can be lowered by reducing the amount
of its more volatile components, such as butane. Lowering RVP in the
summer months can offset the effect of high summer temperatures upon
the volatility of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers emissions of VOC.
Because VOC is a necessary component in the production of ground level
ozone in hot summer months, reduction of RVP will help areas achieve
the NAAQS for ozone and thereby produce benefits for human health and
the environment.
    The primary emission reduction benefits from low-RVP gasoline used
in motor vehicles comes from reductions in VOC evaporative emissions;
exhaust emission reductions are much smaller. Because oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) are a product of combustion from motor
vehicles, they will not be found in evaporative emissions, and low-RVP
gasoline will have little or no effect on NOX.

C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?

    In determining the approvability of a SIP revision, EPA must
evaluate the proposed revision for consistency with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the
CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans).
    For SIP revisions approving certain state fuel measures, an
additional statutory requirement applies. CAA section 211(c)(4)(A)
prohibits state regulations respecting a fuel characteristic or
component for which EPA has adopted a control or prohibition under
section 211(c)(1), unless the state control is identical to the Federal
control. Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides an exception to this preemption
if EPA approves the state requirements in a SIP. Section 211(c)(4)(C)
states that the Administrator may approve an otherwise preempted state
fuel standards in a SIP:

only if he finds that the State control or prohibition is necessary
to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard which the plan implements. The Administrator may find that
a State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve that standard
if no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist,
or if other measures exist and are technically possible to
implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable.

    EPA's August, 1997 ``Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP
Requirements in Ozone SIPs'' gives further guidance on what EPA is
likely to consider in making a finding of necessity. Specifically, the
guidance recommends breaking down the necessity demonstration into four
steps: (1) Identify the quantity of reductions needed to reach
attainment; (2) identify other possible control measures and the
quantity of reductions each measure would achieve; (3) explain in
detail which of those identified control measures are considered
unreasonable or impracticable; and (4) show that, even with the
implementation of all reasonable and practicable measures, the state
would need additional emission reductions for timely attainment, and
that the state fuel measure would supply some or all of such additional
reductions.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision and has determined
that it is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, EPA
regulations, and conforms to EPA's completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V. Further, EPA has looked at Michigan's demonstration
that the low-RVP fuel control is necessary in accordance with Section
211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA and agrees with the State's conclusion that a
fuel measure is needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The SIP submittal contains: (1) 7.0 low vapor pressure gasoline
waiver request for southeast Michigan; (2) Motor Fuels Quality Act,
1984 PA 44, as amended by the Michigan Legislature and approved by the
Governor on April 2, 2006; (3) Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure
evaluation matrix; (4) Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan
dated June 30, 2005; and (5) the public hearing record dated May 19,
2006.

D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)?

    CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain state fuel regulations by
prohibiting a State from prescribing or attempting to enforce any
control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a
fuel or fuel additive for the purposes of motor vehicle emission
control if the Administrator has prescribed under section 211(c)(1) a
control or prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component
of the fuel or fuel additive, unless the state prohibition is identical
to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Administrator.
    EPA has adopted Federal RVP controls under sections 211(c) and
211(h). See 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991). These regulations are
found in 40 CFR 80.27. The State of Michigan is generally required
under the Federal rule to meet a 9.0 psi RVP standard. See 40 CFR
80.27(a)(2). However, EPA approved a SIP revision establishing a 7.8
psi low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA on May 5, 1997. See
62 FR 24341.
    As stated previously, a State may prescribe and enforce an
otherwise preempted low-RVP requirement only if the EPA approves the
control into the State's SIP. In order to approve a preempted state
fuel control into a SIP, EPA must find that the state control is
necessary to achieve a NAAQS because no other measures that would bring
about timely attainment exist or that such measures exist but are
either not reasonable or practicable. Thus, to determine whether
Michigan's low-RVP rule is necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS, EPA must
consider whether there are other reasonable and practicable measures
available to produce the emission reductions needed to achieve the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    Photochemical modeling results submitted by the State in the
document titled ``Ozone Attainment Strategy for Southeast Michigan''
shows that the southeast Michigan area will not attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by 2007 with emission reductions from national controls alone.
The MDEQ and SEMCOG concluded that additional reductions should be
obtained.
    MDEQ used a weight-of-evidence approach that considered such
factors as modeling, monitoring, emission changes, and historical
experience in developing the area's attainment strategy and to estimate
the amount of emission reduction needed for attainment. Based on this
weight-of-evidence, MDEQ projected that a reduction of 13 to 15 tons of
VOC per day will be needed to reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    With this estimate of the VOC reductions necessary to achieve the
8-hour ozone NAAQS, the State evaluated an extensive list of non-fuel
alternative controls to determine if reasonable and practicable
controls could be adopted and used to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
2007, the required attainment date for Marginal ozone nonattainment
areas.
    The State evaluated a wide range of control measures, considering
the following factors: VOC emission reduction potential; ability to
implement the control measure expeditiously; time to secure the
emission reduction and contribute to expeditious attainment;
enforceability; potential impact on other air quality

issues; cost; degree of confidence in achieving the reduction and
improving air quality; ease of implementation; and experience in other
states. Michigan summarized the results of this evaluation in a
document entitled ``Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure evaluation
matrix,'' and provided a more detailed discussion on each measure in
the Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan dated June 30,
2005 (See May 26, 2006 submittal from the State of Michigan, which is
in the docket for this rulemaking).
    After evaluating a wide range of other controls for their
reasonableness and practicability, three measures did rise to the top:
the reduction of VOC emission from cement manufacturing, the adoption
of Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) rules for consumer and commercial
products, and the lowering of gasoline vapor pressure from 7.8 psi to
7.0 psi during the summer months. Michigan determined that the rest of
the control measures would not bring about timely attainment, were
technically impossible to implement, and were either unreasonable or
impracticable.
    In the case of cement manufacturing, there is a single, very large
VOC source in Monroe County. The State's analysis indicates that the
application of controls at this single facility could yield emission
reductions comparable to those from other source categories in the
range of 5-7 tpd, in a time period compatible with the State's
commitment to attain the 8-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as possible.
Michigan's evaluation also showed that sizable VOC reductions in the
range of 8 tpd could be achieved through the adoption of OTC rules for
consumer and commercial products. The State concluded, however, that,
although some of those reductions could come early, the majority of the
benefits of such a requirement would not be achieved until after the
2007 attainment date.
    While the State's analysis showed that controls on cement
manufacturing and consumer/commercial products would result in
significant VOC reductions, these reductions would not sufficient to
ensure compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007.
    The State's analysis identified that adoption of all measures
determined to be reasonable and practicable would result in
approximately 13 to 15 tpd of emission reductions, but not in the
timeframe needed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. Thus, even
with implementation of all reasonable and practicable non-fuel control
measures, additional VOC reductions are necessary.
    Michigan's 7.0 psi low-RVP fuels requirement is calculated to
achieve approximately 5.6 to 7.1 tpd of VOC reductions beginning the
summer of 2007. EPA believes these emission reductions are necessary to
achieve the ozone NAAQS in Southeast Michigan. EPA is basing today's
action on the information available to us at this time, which indicates
that adequate reasonable and practicable non-fuel measures that would
achieve these needed emission reductions, and protect Michigan's air
quality in a timely manner are not available to the State. Hence, EPA
finds that the RVP standards are necessary for attainment of the
applicable ozone NAAQS, and is proposing to approve them as a revision
to the Michigan SIP.
    Finally, the proposed rule changes for Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP fuel
program are not within the scope of the earlier May 5, 1997,
``necessity'' demonstration, under section 211(c)(4)(C), for Michigan's
7.8 psi RVP program. Under Michigan's 7.8 psi RVP fuel program, a
smaller geographic area was covered than for the proposed 7.0 psi RVP
program, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
includes one more county than the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area did.
This change to the covered geographic area, therefore, affects our
finding made at the time of the original SIP approval for 7.8 psi RVP,
regarding the availability of non-fuel measures to bring about timely
attainment.

E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by requiring
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine
the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs under section
211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004, and to publish a list that
identifies these fuels, the States and Petroleum Administration for
Defense Districts (PADD) in which they are used. It also places three
additional restrictions on EPA's authority to waive preemption by
approving a State fuel program into the SIP. These restrictions are as
follows:
     First, EPA may not approve a State fuel program into the
SIP if it would cause an increase in the ``total number of fuels''
approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004.
     Second, in cases where EPA approval would not increase the
total number of fuels on the list because the total number of fuels in
SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels as of the September 1,
2004, then EPA approval requires a finding, after consultation with
DOE, that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution problems
or have significant adverse impacts on fuel producibility in the
affected or contiguous areas.
     Third, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP, EPA may not
approve a state fuel unless that fuel is already approved in at least
one SIP in the applicable PADD.

F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements?

    In a Federal Register notice published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR
32532), we proposed an interpretation of the EPAct provisions which is
based on a fuel type interpretation. We also determined and published a
draft list of the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, under
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, as of September 1, 2004. Under the
proposed interpretation, we will approve a 7.0 psi RVP state fuel
program even if we have not previously approved 7.0 psi RVP into a SIP
in the applicable PADD as of September 1, 2004. (71 FR 32534). Our
approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program, however, is subject to the other
EPAct restrictions, described earlier above. More specifically, our
approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program must not cause an increase to the
total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004.
Also, if our approval will not increase the total number of fuels on
the list, because the total number of fuels in SIPs is below the number
of fuels we approved as of the September 1, 2004, we must make a
finding, after consultation with DOE, that the 7.0 psi RVP program will
not cause supply or distribution problems or have significant adverse
impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas.
    Under our proposed interpretation, Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP
requirement for Southeast Michigan is not a ``new fuel type.'' EPA's
approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP will not increase the total number
of fuels approved into all SIPs, as of September 1, 2004, because 7.0
psi RVP is on the draft list of fuels.\1\ Further, because the total
number of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below the
number of fuels on the draft list of fuels, which we have just
published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532), we do not believe that we need
to make a finding on the effect of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel requirement in
Southeast

Michigan on fuel supply and distribution in either Southeast Michigan
or the contiguous areas. Nevertheless, EPA notes that an April 15, 2005
study prepared for the American Petroleum Institute titled ``Potential
Effects of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard on Gasoline Supply, Demand and
Production Costs'' concluded that the petroleum industry was capable of
supplying 7.0 psi summertime gasoline to Southeast Michigan without
fuel supply or distribution disruptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The draft list of fuels includes 7.0 psi RVP programs, which
have been approved into the Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and
Texas SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In today's action, we are proposing approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi
RVP program as consistent with the provisions of EPAct, and assuming
that we will finalize our interpretation of the EPAct provisions, as
proposed. Accordingly, in our final action approving Michigan's 7.0 psi
RVP program, we will address the issue of whether our approval of
Michigan's program is consistent with the final adopted interpretation
of EPAct.

G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision at the request of the
MDEQ. To ensure that it secures the needed approval under section
211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, Michigan submitted this action for EPA
approval to make it part of the SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July 14, 2006, establishing a 7.0 psi
RVP fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in Southeast Michigan
which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. EPA is proposing this approval on the
condition that the Agency's final interpretation of the EPAct
provisions and our determination of the total number of fuels approved
under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA as of September 1, 2004, based on
this interpretation, and the resulting draft list of these fuels does
not change from what we proposed on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532).
    EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the
SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for
Southeast Michigan to achieve the NAAQS for ozone.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 3, 2006.
Jo-Lynn Traub,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6-13345 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 59258]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23306]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No.: 34-93396]

Public Availability of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), SEC is publishing this
notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY2019 Service
Contract Inventory (SCI) along with the FY2020 SCI Planned Analysis.
    The SCI provides information on FY2019 actions above the simplified
acquisition threshold for service contracts. The inventory organizes
the information by function to show how SEC distributes contracted
resources throughout the agency. The SEC developed the inventory per
the guidance issued on January 17, 2017, by the Office of Management
and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's
guidance is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/service_contract_inventories.pdf.
    The Service Contract Inventory Analysis for FY2019 provides
information based on the FY 2019 Inventory. Please note that the SEC's
FY 2019 Service Contract Inventory data is now included in government-
wide inventory available on www.acquisition.gov. The government-wide
inventory can be filtered to display the inventory data for the SEC.
The SEC has posted the FY 2019 SCI Analysis and its FY 2020 plans for
analyzing data on the SEC's homepage at http://www.sec.gov/about/secreports.shtml and http://www.sec.gov/open.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding the service
contract inventory to Vance Cathell, Director Office of Acquisitions
202.551.8385 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 21, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23306 Filed 10-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36807-36810]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14503]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69752; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and
Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Introduce a Market Maker Peg Order for Use
on NASDAQ OMX PSX

June 13, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 3, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change on June 6, 2013.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice, as amended, 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.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange replaced two erroneous
references to Nasdaq with references to Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to introduce a Market Maker Peg Order
(``MMPO'') for use on NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX''). The Exchange proposes
to implement the change on a date that is on, or shortly after, the
expiration of the 30-day operative delay provided for under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed deletions
are in brackets; proposed additions are in italics.

3301. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the Rule 3200 and 3300 Series
for the trading of securities on PSX.
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for designated orders that are eligible for entry into
the System, and shall include:
    (1)-(11) No change.
    (12) ``Market Maker Peg Order'' is a limit order that, upon
entry, the bid or offer is automatically priced by the System at the
Designated Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid
and National Best Offer, or if no National Best Bid or National Best
Offer, at the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale
from the responsible single plan processor in order to comply with
the quotation requirements for Market Makers set forth in Rule
3213(a)(2). Upon reaching the Defined Limit, the price of a Market
Maker Peg Order bid or offer will be adjusted by the System to the
Designated Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid
and National Best Offer, or, if no National Best Bid or National
Best Offer, to the Designated Percentage away from the last reported
sale from the responsible single plan processor. If a Market Maker
Peg Order bid or offer moves away from the Designated Percentage
towards the then current National Best Bid or National Best Offer,
as appropriate, by 4 percentage points, the price of such bid or
offer will be adjusted to the Designated Percentage away from the
then current National Best Bid and National Best Offer, or if no
National Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the Designated
Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible
single plan processor. In the absence of a National Best Bid or
National Best Offer and if no last reported sale, the order will be
cancelled or rejected. During the period before 9:30 a.m. and after
4:00 p.m., the Designated Percentage and Defined Limit applicable to
a Market Maker Peg Order will be the same as for the periods from
9:30 a.m. through 9:45 a.m.
    If, after entry, the Market Maker Peg Order is priced based on
the consolidated last sale and such Market Maker Peg Order is
established as the National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the
Market Maker Peg Order will not be subsequently adjusted in
accordance with this rule until either there is a new consolidated
last sale, or a new National Best Bid or new National Best Offer is
established by either another national securities exchange or PSX.
Market Maker Peg Orders are not eligible for routing pursuant to
Rule 3315 and are always displayed on PSX. Notwithstanding the
availability of Market Maker Peg Order functionality, a Market Maker
remains responsible for entering, monitoring, and resubmitting, as
applicable, quotations that meet the requirements of Rule 3213. A
new timestamp is created for the order each time that it is
automatically adjusted.
    For purposes of this paragraph, PSX will apply the Designated
Percentage and Defined Limit as set forth in Rule 3213, subject to
the following exception. Nothing in this rule shall preclude a
Market Maker from designating a more aggressive offset from the
National Best Bid or National Best Offer than the given Designated
Percentage for any individual Market Maker Peg Order. If a Market
Maker designates a more aggressive offset from the National Best Bid
or National Best Offer, the price of a Market Maker Peg Order bid or
offer will be adjusted by the System to maintain the Market Maker-
designated offset from the National Best Bid or National Best Offer,
or if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the order will be
cancelled or rejected.
    (g)-(i) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to introduce a Market Maker Peg Order
(``MMPO'') for use on PSX by registered PSX Market Makers. The MMPO,
which is currently available for use on The NASDAQ Stock Market
(``NASDAQ''), is an order type that provides a means by which a market
maker may comply with its market making obligations under applicable
Exchange rules.\5\ The Exchange recently adopted rules to allowing
[sic] market making on PSX, and is proposing to introduce the MMPO in
order to facilitate compliance by PSX Market Makers with quoting
obligations contained in these newly adopted rules.\6\ The MMPO is
available for use only by PSX Market Makers because these obligations
are not applicable to other market participants. The MMPO is available
only through the Exchange's RASH and FIX connectivity protocols,
because these are the only protocols that support continuous pegging
functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67584 (August 2, 2012),
77 FR 47472 (August 8, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-066).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69452 (April 25, 2013),
78 FR 25512 (May 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSX Rule 3213 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). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSX Market Makers must also adhere to certain pricing obligations
established by Rule 3213, 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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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%. For the pilot list of Exchange Traded Products that are Tier 1
Securities, see Exhibit 3 to SR-Phlx-2013-24, Amendment No. 1 (March
18, 2013) (available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/pdf/phlx-filings/2013/SR-Phlx-2013-24_Amendment_1.pdf).
    \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 Rule 3213 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 must
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 must 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.
    The MMPO is designed to assist Market Makers in complying with
these requirements by having its price adjusted in accordance with the
parameters required by Rule 3213. Thus, use of the order will allow
market makers to make liquidity available at prices reasonably related
to the National Best Bid and National Best Offer, even in circumstances
where they are not themselves quoting at the best price or have more
limited liquidity available at the best price. The Exchange believes
that use of the order may therefore serve to dampen volatility and
minimize the extent to which transactions on PSX result in the
imposition of limit-up, limit-down restrictions or trading pauses under
Rule 3100 and related rules of other exchanges.
    Specifically, the MMPO is a limit order that, upon entry, is
automatically priced by the PSX System at the Designated Percentage
away from the then current National Best Bid and National Best Offer,
or if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer, at the Designated
Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single
plan processor in order. For example, if the National Best Bid was $10
in a Tier 1 Security, the Designated Percentage would be 8%, an MMPO to
buy entered between 9:45 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. would be priced at
$9.20.\12\ Because the order is designed to post to the book at the
Designated Percentage, it would not be marketable upon entry and
therefore may not be entered with a time-in-force of Immediate-or-
Cancel. As a result, an MMPO would provide, rather than access,
liquidity. The order may not be assigned any special conditions
governing its terms of execution, other than time-in-force, limit
price, and the pegging functionality described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As noted above, the MMPO is a limit order and therefore
must be assigned a limit priced beyond which it will not execute. If
the repricing mechanism of the order would result in the order being
priced at a level inconsistent with its limit price, the order will
be rejected or cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon reaching the Defined Limit, the price of an MMPO will be
adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage away from the then
current National Best Bid and National Best Offer, or, if no National
Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the Designated Percentage away from
the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor.
Thus, if the National Best Bid in the above example increased to
$10.17, the MMPO priced at $9.20 would now be more than 9.5%, the
Defined Limit, away from the National Best Bid, and would be repriced
to $9.35, the Designated Percentage away from $10.17.
    If the market moves such that the price of an MMPO is within 4

percentage points of the National Best Bid or National Best Offer, as
appropriate, the price of the order will be adjusted to the Designated
Percentage away from the then current National Best Bid and National
Best Offer, or if no National Best Bid or National Best Offer, to the
Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the
responsible single plan processor. Thus, if the National Best Bid was
initially $10 in a Tier 1 Security, and an MMPO to buy was initially
entered at $9.20, if the National Best Bid decreased to $9.58 (such
that the MMPO was less than 4% away from the National Best Bid), the
MMPO would be repriced to $8.81 (8% away from the National Best Bid).
    For a given MMPO, a Market Maker may designate a more aggressive
offset from the National Best Bid or National Best Offer than the given
Designated Percentage.\13\ Thus, for example, the Market Maker could
designate an offset of $0.25, in which case the order would be
continually repriced to maintain the $0.25 offset as the National Best
Bid or National Best Offer moved. Thus, if the National Best Bid was
$10, an MMPO to buy with a $0.25 offset would initially be priced at
$9.75, with the price rising or falling continually as the National
Best Bid moved.\14\ If there is no National Best Bid or National Best
Offer (as applicable), an MMPO with a designated offset amount will be
cancelled or rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Such an offset will be expressed in dollars and cents
rather than as a percentage.
    \14\ An MMPO with an offset operates in a manner similar to a
Primary Pegged Order with an offset amount (see Rule 3301(f)(4)),
but an MMPO is always displayed. Note also that if the repricing of
an order with an offset amount would result in the order being
priced at a level inconsistent with its limit price, the order will
be rejected or cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an MMPO is entered or on the book at a time when there is no
National Best Bid or National Best Offer (as applicable) and no last
reported sale, the order will be cancelled or rejected. If an MMPO is
priced based on the consolidated last sale because there is no National
Best Bid or National Best Offer, and the MMPO itself establishes the
National Best Bid or National Best Offer, the order will not be
subsequently adjusted until either there is a new consolidated last
sale, or a new National Best Bid or new National Best Offer is
established. Thus, if the last sale price on the consolidated tape was
$10 and an MMPO to buy is priced at $9.20 and establishes the National
Best Bid, the order will not then be repriced to maintain an offset
from itself. Rather, the order will be repriced only once there is an
independent basis pricing the order. In the event of an execution
against an MMPO that reduces the size of the order below one round lot,
the Market Maker would need to enter a new order (after performing
required regulatory checks, as discussed below) to satisfy its
obligations under Rule 3213.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Rule 3213 generally sets forth PSX Market Maker
requirements, which include quotation and pricing obligations, and
the firm quote obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MMPOs are not eligible for routing pursuant to Rule 3315 and are
always displayed on PSX. Notwithstanding the availability of MMPO
functionality, a Market Maker remains responsible for entering,
monitoring, and resubmitting, as applicable, quotations that meet the
requirements of Rule 3213. A new timestamp is created for an MMPO each
time that its price is automatically adjusted. At a particular price,
the order would be processed in regular price/time priority, with
better priced interest being executed prior to the MMPO and with the
MMPO being executed behind similarly priced orders entered before the
MMPO had its price adjusted.
    Although Rule 3213 does not govern the pre-market trading session
before 9:30 a.m. and the post-market trading session after 4:00 p.m., a
Market Maker may enter an MMPO during such periods. In that case, the
Designated Percentage and Defined Limit applicable to the MMPO will be
the same as for the periods from 9:30 a.m. through 9:45 a.m., as
described in Rule 3213.\16\ As PSX does not have a special market
opening or closing process, an MMPO does not behave differently at 9:30
a.m. or 4:00 p.m. than it does immediately before or after such times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra notes 7 and 9 [sic]. This aspect of the operation
of the MMPO is identical to the operation of NASDAQ's MMPO. Phlx is,
however, adding additional language to its rule to promote its
clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because use of the MMPO would not be inconsistent with Market
Makers having the capacity to control order origination, as required by
SEC Rule 15c3-5 (the ``Market Access Rule''),\17\ and because Market
Makers using the MMPO will be able to make marking and locate
determinations prior to order entry, as required by Regulation SHO,\18\
use of the order is not inconsistent with Market Makers fulfilling
their obligations under these rules, while also meeting their Exchange
market making obligations. It should be noted, however, that use of the
order does not ensure that the Market Maker is in compliance with its
regulatory obligations under the Market Access Rule or Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-5. The Market Access Rule requires a
broker-dealer with market access, or that provides a customer or any
other person with access to an exchange or alternative trading
system through use of its market participant identifier (``MPID'')
or otherwise, to establish, document, and maintain a system of risk
management controls and supervisory procedures reasonably designed
to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks of this business
activity.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.200-.204. Regulation SHO obligations generally
include properly marking sell orders, obtaining a ``locate'' for
short sale orders, closing out fail to deliver positions, and, where
applicable, complying with the short sale price test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\19\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ 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; and also in that it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes that the MMPO will aid
Market Makers in complying with the requirements of Rule 3312. The
Exchange further believes that compliance with this rule will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and protect investors and the public
interest, because it will provide a means by which Market Makers may
offer liquidity at prices that are reasonably related to the National
Best Bid and National Best Offer, even in circumstances where they are
not willing to quote at the inside market. As a result, in
circumstances where liquidity available at prices closer to the inside
than the price of an MMPO is exhausted, the MMPO will nevertheless be
available to support executions at prices that are not widely at
variance with the prior inside market. Thus, use of the order will
serve to lessen volatility and diminish the likelihood that a limit-up,
limit-down restriction or a trading pause will be triggered in a
particular stock that is subject to buying or selling pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology for repricing an MMPO is consistent with the
requirements of the Act because it will ensure that the price of the
order bears

a reasonable relationship to the inside market and is less likely to
execute at a price that would trigger a limit-up, limit-down
restriction or a trading pause. Moreover, because the repricing of an
MMPO results in a new timestamp being attached to the order, the MMPO
does not provide a means by which an MMPO may achieve an execution
priority superior to an order entered at that price earlier in time. In
addition, the use of the MMPO would not be inconsistent with Market
Makers fulfilling their obligations under the Market Access Rule and
Regulation SHO.
    The Exchange also believes that although the order may be used only
by Market Makers, this restriction is not unfairly discriminatory
because only Market Makers are subject to the requirements of Rule
3312; accordingly, the order is not needed to assist other market
participants in fulfilling regulatory obligations. To the extent that a
market participant wishes to maintain an order at a price that deviates
from the inside market by a particular amount, however, it may use the
Primary Peg Order to achieve this purpose. Accordingly, an alternative
to the MMPO is already available to market participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically,
the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance PSX's
competitiveness by providing Market Makers on PSX with a means to offer
liquidity at prices reasonably related to the inside market. The
Exchange believes that this functionality will be appealing to
potential Market Makers, and therefore will make it more likely that
market participants will choose to become active on PSX. This may, in
turn, increase the extent of liquidity available on PSX and increase
its ability to compete with other execution venues to attract orders
that are seeking liquidity. The Exchange further believes that the
introduction of the MMPO will not impair in any manner the ability of
market participants or other execution venues to compete.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \21\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-2013-62 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-2013-62. 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-2013-62 and should be
submitted on or before July 10, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14503 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P