[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73247-73252]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29843]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76470; File No. SR-BATS-2015-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Adopt Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited
Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Disruptive Quoting and
Trading Activity

November 18, 2015.
    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 November 6, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BATS'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On November 17, 2015, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ 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.
    \3\ As the Exchange states in Item I, Amendment No. 1 amended
and replaced the original proposal in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to adopt a new rule to clearly
prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange, as
further described below. Further, the Exchange proposes to amend
Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to suspend
Members or their clients that violate such rule. This Amendment No. 1
to SR-BATS-2015-101 amends and replaces the original proposal in its
entirety.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
Introduction
    The Exchange is filing this proposal to adopt a new rule to clearly
prohibit disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange and to
amend Exchange Rules to permit the Exchange to take prompt action to
suspend Members or their clients that violate such rule. The Exchange
notes, as further described below, that it previously filed this
proposal as File No. SR-BATS-2015-57 and Amendment No. 1 thereto (the
``Initial Proposal''). The Exchange received comments on the Initial
Proposal and simultaneously with this filing both responded to such
comments \4\ and withdrew such Initial Proposal. The Exchange submits
this proposal, as revised, in order to solicit additional comment. The
Exchange believes that the revisions it has made to the Initial
Proposal satisfactorily address comments received and that there is
good cause to approve the proposal, as revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Anders Franzon, VP, Associate General Counsel, BATS, dated November
6, 2015 (``BATS Comment Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As a national securities exchange registered pursuant to Section 6
of the Act, the Exchange is required to be organized and to have the
capacity to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members, with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder,
and the Exchange's Rules.\5\ Further, the Exchange's Rules are required
to be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade . . . and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.'' \6\ In
fulfilling these requirements, the Exchange has developed a
comprehensive regulatory program that includes automated surveillance
of trading activity that is both operated directly by Exchange staff
and by staff of the Financial Industry

Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') pursuant to a Regulatory Services
Agreement (``RSA''). When disruptive and potentially manipulative or
improper quoting and trading activity is identified, the Exchange or
FINRA (acting as an agent of the Exchange) conducts an investigation
into the activity, requesting additional information from the Member or
Members involved. To the extent violations of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, or Exchange Rules have been identified and
confirmed, the Exchange or FINRA as its agent will commence the
enforcement process, which might result in, among other things, a
censure, a requirement to take certain remedial actions, one or more
restrictions on future business activities, a monetary fine, or even a
temporary or permanent ban from the securities industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process described above, from the identification of disruptive
and potentially manipulative or improper quoting and trading activity
to a final resolution of the matter, can often take several years. The
Exchange believes that this time period is generally necessary and
appropriate to afford the subject Member adequate due process,
particularly in complex cases. However, as described below, the
Exchange believes that there are certain obvious and uncomplicated
cases of disruptive and manipulative behavior or cases where the
potential harm to investors is so large that the Exchange should have
the authority to initiate an expedited suspension proceeding in order
to stop the behavior from continuing on the Exchange.
    In recent years, several cases have been brought and resolved by
the Exchange and other SROs that involved allegations of wide-spread
market manipulation, much of which was ultimately being conducted by
foreign persons and entities using relatively rudimentary technology to
access the markets and over which the Exchange and other SROs had no
direct jurisdiction. In each case, the conduct involved a pattern of
disruptive quoting and trading activity indicative of manipulative
layering \7\ or spoofing.\8\ The Exchange and other SROs were able to
identify the disruptive quoting and trading activity in real-time or
near real-time; nonetheless, in accordance with Exchange Rules and the
Act, the Members responsible for such conduct or responsible for their
customers' conduct were allowed to continue the disruptive quoting and
trading activity on the Exchange and other exchanges during the
entirety of the subsequent lengthy investigation and enforcement
process. The Exchange believes that it should have the authority to
initiate an expedited suspension proceeding in order to stop the
behavior from continuing on the Exchange if a Member is engaging in or
facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity and the Member has
received sufficient notice with an opportunity to respond, but such
activity has not ceased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Layering'' is a form of market manipulation in which
multiple, non-bona fide limit orders are entered on one side of the
market at various price levels in order to create the appearance of
a change in the levels of supply and demand, thereby artificially
moving the price of the security. An order is then executed on the
opposite side of the market at the artificially created price, and
the non-bona fide orders are cancelled.
    \8\ ``Spoofing'' is a form of market manipulation that involves
the market manipulator placing non-bona fide orders that are
intended to trigger some type of market movement and/or response
from other market participants, from which the market manipulator
might benefit by trading bona fide orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following two examples are instructive on the Exchange's
rationale for the proposed rule change.
    In July 2012, Biremis Corp. (formerly Swift Trade Securities USA,
Inc.) (the ``Firm'') and its CEO were barred from the industry for,
among other things, supervisory violations related to a failure by the
Firm to detect and prevent disruptive and allegedly manipulative
trading activities, including layering, short sale violations, and
anti-money laundering violations.\9\ The Firm's sole business was to
provide trade execution services via a proprietary day trading platform
and order management system to day traders located in foreign
jurisdictions. Thus, the disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading
activity introduced by the Firm to U.S. markets originated directly or
indirectly from foreign clients of the Firm. The pattern of disruptive
and allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity was widespread
across multiple exchanges, and the Exchange, FINRA, and other SROs
identified clear patterns of the behavior in 2007 and 2008. Although
the Firm and its principals were on notice of the disruptive and
allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity that was occurring,
the Firm took little to no action to attempt to supervise or prevent
such quoting and trading activity until at least 2009. Even when it put
some controls in place, they were deficient and the pattern of
disruptive and allegedly manipulative trading activity continued to
occur. As noted above, the final resolution of the enforcement action
to bar the Firm and its CEO from the industry was not concluded until
2012, four years after the disruptive and allegedly manipulative
trading activity was first identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Biremis Corp. and Peter Beck, FINRA Letter of
Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No.<PHONE_NUMBER>202, July 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September of 2012, Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services,
Inc. (the ``Firm'') settled a regulatory action in connection with the
Firm's provision of a trading platform, trade software and trade
execution, support and clearing services for day traders.\10\ Many
traders using the Firm's services were located in foreign
jurisdictions. The Firm ultimately settled the action with FINRA and
several exchanges, including the Exchange, for a total monetary fine of
$3.4 million. In a separate action, the Firm settled with the
Commission for a monetary fine of $2.5 million.\11\ Among the alleged
violations in the case were disruptive and allegedly manipulative
quoting and trading activity, including spoofing, layering, wash
trading, and pre-arranged trading. Through its conduct and insufficient
procedures and controls, the Firm also allegedly committed anti-money
laundering violations by failing to detect and report manipulative and
suspicious trading activity. The Firm was alleged to have not only
provided foreign traders with access to the U.S. markets to engage in
such activities, but that its principals also owned and funded foreign
subsidiaries that engaged in the disruptive and allegedly manipulative
quoting and trading activity. Although the pattern of disruptive and
allegedly manipulative quoting and trading activity was identified in
2009, as noted above, the enforcement action was not concluded until
2012. Thus, although disruptive and allegedly manipulative quoting and
trading was promptly detected, it continued for several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services, LLC, FINRA
Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No.<PHONE_NUMBER>0001,
September 25, 2012.
    \11\ In the Matter of Hold Brothers On-Line Investment Services,
LLC, Exchange Act Release No. 67924, September 25, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes the current criminal proceedings that have
commenced against Navinder Singh Sarao. Mr. Sarao's allegedly
manipulative trading activity, which included forms of layering and
spoofing in the futures markets, has been linked as a contributing
factor to the ``Flash Crash'' of 2010, and yet continued through 2015.
    The Exchange believes that the activities described in the cases
above provide justification for the proposed rule change, which is
described below.

Rule 8.17--Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding
    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 8.17 to set forth
procedures for issuing suspension orders, immediately prohibiting a
Member from conducting continued disruptive quoting and trading
activity on the Exchange. Importantly, these procedures would also
provide the Exchange the authority to order a Member to cease and
desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of the Member
that is conducting disruptive quoting and trading activity in violation
of proposed Rule 12.15.
    Under proposed paragraph (a) of Rule 8.17, with the prior written
authorization of the Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO'') or such other
senior officers as the CRO may designate, the Office of General Counsel
or Regulatory Department of the Exchange (such departments generally
referred to as the ``Exchange'' for purposes of proposed Rule 8.17) may
initiate an expedited suspension proceeding with respect to alleged
violations of Rule 12.15, which is proposed as part of this filing and
described in detail below. Proposed paragraph (a) would also set forth
the requirements for notice and service of such notice pursuant to the
Rule, including the required method of service and the content of
notice.
    Proposed paragraph (b) of Rule 8.17 would govern the appointment of
a Hearing Panel as well as potential disqualification or recusal of
Hearing Officers. The proposed provision is consistent with existing
Exchange Rule 8.6 and includes the requirement for a Hearing Officer to
be recused in the event he or she has a conflict of interest or bias or
other circumstances exist where his or her fairness might reasonably be
questioned. In addition to recusal initiated by such a Hearing Officer,
a party to the proceeding will be permitted to file a motion to
disqualify a Hearing Officer. However, due to the compressed schedule
pursuant to which the process would operate under Rule 8.17, the
proposed rule would require such motion to be filed no later than 5
days after the announcement of the Hearing Panel and the Exchange's
brief in opposition to such motion would be required to be filed no
later than 5 days after service thereof. Pursuant to existing Rule
8.6(b), if the Hearing Panel believes the Respondent has provided
satisfactory evidence in support of the motion to disqualify, the
applicable Hearing Officer shall remove himself or herself and request
the Chief Executive Officer to reassign the hearing to another Hearing
Officer such that the Hearing Panel still meets the compositional
requirements described in Rule 8.6(a). If the Hearing Panel determines
that the Respondent's grounds for disqualification are insufficient, it
shall deny the Respondent's motion for disqualification by setting
forth the reasons for the denial in writing and the Hearing Panel will
proceed with the hearing.
    Under paragraph (c) of the proposed Rule, the hearing would be held
not later than 15 days after service of the notice initiating the
suspension proceeding, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the
Hearing Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. In
the event of a recusal or disqualification of a Hearing Officer, the
hearing shall be held not later than five days after a replacement
Hearing Officer is appointed. Proposed paragraph (c) would also govern
how the hearing is conducted, including the authority of Hearing
Officers, witnesses, additional information that may be required by the
Hearing Panel, the requirement that a transcript of the proceeding be
created and details related to such transcript, and details regarding
the creation and maintenance of the record of the proceeding. Proposed
paragraph (c) would also state that if a Respondent fails to appear at
a hearing for which it has notice, the allegations in the notice and
accompanying declaration may be deemed admitted, and the Hearing Panel
may issue a suspension order without further proceedings. Finally, as
proposed, if the Exchange fails to appear at a hearing for which it has
notice, the Hearing Panel may order that the suspension proceeding be
dismissed.
    Under paragraph (d) of the proposed Rule, the Hearing Panel would
be authorized to issue a written decision stating whether a suspension
order would be imposed. The Hearing Panel would be required to issue
the decision not later than 10 days after receipt of the hearing
transcript, unless otherwise extended by the Chairman of the Hearing
Panel with the consent of the Parties for good cause shown. The Rule
would state that a suspension order shall be imposed if the Hearing
Panel finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged
violation specified in the notice has occurred and that the violative
conduct or continuation thereof is likely to result in significant
market disruption or other significant harm to investors.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would also describe the content, scope and
form of a suspension order. As proposed, a suspension order shall be
limited to ordering a Respondent to cease and desist from violating
proposed Rule 12.15, and/or to ordering a Respondent to cease and
desist from providing access to the Exchange to a client of Respondent
that is causing violations of Rule 12.15. Under the proposed rule, a
suspension order shall also set forth the alleged violation and the
significant market disruption or other significant harm to investors
that is likely to result without the issuance of an order. The order
shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts the Respondent is
to take or refrain from taking, and suspend such Respondent unless and
until such action is taken or refrained from. Finally, the order shall
include the date and hour of its issuance. As proposed, a suspension
order would remain effective and enforceable unless modified, set
aside, limited, or revoked pursuant to proposed paragraph (e), as
described below. Finally, paragraph (d) would require service of the
Hearing Panel's decision and any suspension order consistent with other
portions of the proposed rule related to service.
    Proposed paragraph (e) of Rule 8.17 would state that at any time
after the Office of Hearing Officers served the Respondent with a
suspension order, a Party could apply to the Hearing Panel to have the
order modified, set aside, limited, or revoked. If any part of a
suspension order is modified, set aside, limited, or revoked, proposed
paragraph (e) of Rule 8.17 provides the Hearing Panel discretion to
leave the cease and desist part of the order in place. For example, if
a suspension order suspends Respondent unless and until Respondent
ceases and desists providing access to the Exchange to a client of
Respondent, and after the order is entered the Respondent complies, the
Hearing Panel is permitted to modify the order to lift the suspension
portion of the order while keeping in place the cease and desist
portion of the order. With its broad modification powers, the Hearing
Panel also maintains the discretion to impose conditions upon the
removal of a suspension--for example, the Hearing Panel could modify an
order to lift the suspension portion of the order in the event a
Respondent complies with the cease and desist portion of the order but
additionally order that the suspension will be re-imposed if Respondent
violates the cease and desist provisions modified order in the future.
The Hearing Panel generally would be required to respond to the request
in writing within 10 days after receipt of the request. An application
to modify, set aside, limit or revoke a suspension

order would not stay the effectiveness of the suspension order.
    Finally, proposed paragraph (f) would provide that sanctions issued
under the proposed Rule 8.17 would constitute final and immediately
effective disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Exchange, and that the
right to have any action under the Rule reviewed by the Commission
would be governed by Section 19 of the Act. The filing of an
application for review would not stay the effectiveness of a suspension
order unless the Commission otherwise ordered.
Rule 12.15--Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity Prohibited
    The Exchange currently has authority to prohibit and take action
against manipulative trading activity, including disruptive quoting and
trading activity, pursuant to its general market manipulation rules,
including Rule 3.1. The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 12.15,
which would more specifically define and prohibit disruptive quoting
and trading activity on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange also
proposes to apply the proposed suspension rules to proposed Rule 12.15.
    Proposed Rule 12.15 would prohibit Members from engaging in or
facilitating disruptive quoting and trading activity on the Exchange,
as described in proposed Interpretation and Policies .01 and .02 of the
Rule, including acting in concert with other persons to effect such
activity. The Exchange believes that it is necessary to extend the
prohibition to situations when persons are acting in concert to avoid a
potential loophole where disruptive quoting and trading activity is
simply split between several brokers or customers.
    To provide proper context for the situations in which the Exchange
proposes to utilize its proposed authority, the Exchange believes it is
necessary to describe the types of disruptive quoting and trading
activity that would cause the Exchange to use its authority.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy
.01 and .02, providing additional details regarding disruptive quoting
and trading activity. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(a), which
describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of
the elements indicative of layering, would describe disruptive quoting
and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts
are present: (a) A party enters multiple limit orders on one side of
the market at various price levels (the ``Displayed Orders''); and (b)
following the entry of the Displayed Orders, the level of supply and
demand for the security changes; and (c) the party enters one or more
orders on the opposite side of the market of the Displayed Orders (the
``Contra-Side Orders'') that are subsequently executed; and (d)
following the execution of the Contra-Side Orders, the party cancels
the Displayed Orders. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(b), which
describes disruptive quoting and trading activity containing many of
the elements indicative of spoofing, would describe disruptive quoting
and trading activity as a frequent pattern in which the following facts
are present: (a) A party narrows the spread for a security by placing
an order inside the national best bid or offer; and (b) the party then
submits an order on the opposite side of the market that executes
against another market participant that joined the new inside market
established by the order described in (a) that narrowed the spread. The
Exchange believes that the proposed descriptions of disruptive quoting
and trading activity articulated in the rule are consistent with the
activities that have been identified and described in the client access
cases described above. The Exchange further believes that the proposed
descriptions will provide Members with clear descriptions of disruptive
quoting and trading activity that will help them to avoid engaging in
such activities or allowing their clients to engage in such activities.
    The Exchange proposes to make clear in Interpretation and Policy
.02 that, unless otherwise indicated, the descriptions of disruptive
quoting and trading activity do not require the facts to occur in a
specific order in order for the rule to apply. For instance, with
respect to the pattern defined in proposed Interpretation and Policy
.01(a) it is of no consequence whether a party first enters Displayed
Orders and then Contra-side Orders or vice-versa. However, as proposed,
it is required for supply and demand to change following the entry of
the Displayed Orders. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that
disruptive quoting and trading activity includes a pattern or practice
in which some portion of the disruptive quoting and trading activity is
conducted on the Exchange and the other portions of the disruptive
quoting and trading activity are conducted on one or more other
exchanges. The Exchange believes that this authority is necessary to
address market participants who would otherwise seek to avoid the
prohibitions of the proposed Rule by spreading their activity amongst
various execution venues.
    In sum, proposed Rule 12.15 coupled with proposed Rule 8.17 would
provide the Exchange with authority to promptly act to prevent
disruptive quoting and trading activity from continuing on the
Exchange. Below is an example of how the proposed rule would operate.
    Assume that through its surveillance program, Exchange staff
identifies a pattern of potentially disruptive quoting and trading
activity. After an initial investigation the Exchange would then
contact the Member responsible for the orders that caused the activity
to request an explanation of the activity as well as any additional
relevant information, including the source of the activity. If the
Exchange were to continue to see the same pattern from the same Member
and the source of the activity is the same or has been previously
identified as a frequent source of disruptive quoting and trading
activity then the Exchange could initiate an expedited suspension
proceeding by serving notice on the Member that would include details
regarding the alleged violations as well as the proposed sanction. In
such a case the proposed sanction would likely be to order the Member
to cease and desist providing access to the Exchange to the client that
is responsible for the disruptive quoting and trading activity and to
suspend such Member unless and until such action is taken. The Member
would have the opportunity to be heard in front of a Hearing Panel at a
hearing to be conducted within 15 days of the notice. If the Hearing
Panel determined that the violation alleged in the notice did not occur
or that the conduct or its continuation would not have the potential to
result in significant market disruption or other significant harm to
investors, then the Hearing Panel would dismiss the suspension order
proceeding. If the Hearing Panel determined that the violation alleged
in the notice did occur and that the conduct or its continuation is
likely to result in significant market disruption or other significant
harm to investors, then the Hearing Panel would issue the order
including the proposed sanction, ordering the Member to cease providing
access to the client at issue and suspending such Member unless and
until such action is taken. If such Member wished for the suspension to
be lifted because the client ultimately responsible for the activity no
longer would be provided access to the Exchange, then such Member could
apply to the Hearing Panel to have the order modified, set aside,
limited or

revoked. The Exchange notes that the issuance of a suspension order
would not alter the Exchange's ability to further investigate the
matter and/or later sanction the Member pursuant to the Exchange's
standard disciplinary process for supervisory violations or other
violations of Exchange rules or the Act.
    The Exchange reiterates that it already has broad authority to take
action against a Member in the event that such Member is engaging in or
facilitating disruptive or manipulative trading activity on the
Exchange. For the reasons described above, and in light of recent cases
like the client access cases described above, as well as other cases
currently under investigation, the Exchange believes that it is equally
important for the Exchange to have the authority to promptly initiate
expedited suspension proceedings against any Member who has
demonstrated a clear pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and
trading activity, as described above, and to take action including
ordering such Member to terminate access to the Exchange to one or more
of such Member's clients if such clients are responsible for the
activity. The Exchange recognizes that its proposed authority to issue
a suspension order is a powerful measure that should be used very
cautiously. Consequently, the proposed rules have been designed to
ensure that the proceedings are used to address only the most clear and
serious types of disruptive quoting and trading activity and that the
interests of Respondents are protected. For example, to ensure that
proceedings are used appropriately and that the decision to initiate a
proceeding is made only at the highest staff levels, the proposed rules
require the CRO or another senior officer of the Exchange to issue
written authorization before the Exchange can institute an expedited
suspension proceeding. In addition, the Exchange believes that it would
use this authority in limited circumstances, when necessary to protect
investors, other Members and the Exchange. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed expedited suspension provisions described
above that provide the opportunity to respond as well as a Hearing
Panel determination prior to taking action will ensure that the
Exchange would not utilize its authority in the absence of a clear
pattern or practice of disruptive quoting and trading activity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ and further the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ because they are 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 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. Pursuant to the proposal, the Exchange will have a
mechanism to promptly initiate expedited suspension proceedings in the
event the Exchange believes that it has sufficient proof that a
violation of Rule 12.15 has occurred and is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which require that the
rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate
discipline for, violations of the Commission and Exchange rules. The
Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act because the proposal helps to strengthen the
Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where
awaiting the conclusion of a full disciplinary proceeding is unsuitable
in view of the potential harm to other Members and their customers as
well as the Exchange if conduct is allowed to continue on the Exchange.
As explained above, the Exchange notes that it has defined the
prohibited disruptive quoting and trading activity by modifying the
traditional definitions of layering and spoofing \15\ to eliminate an
express intent element that would not be proven on an expedited basis
and would instead require a thorough investigation into the activity.
As noted throughout this filing, the Exchange believes it is necessary
for the protection of investors to make such modifications in order to
adopt an expedited process rather than allowing disruptive quoting and
trading activity to occur for several years. Through this proposal, the
Exchange does not intend to modify the definitions of spoofing and
layering that have generally been used by the Exchange and other
regulators in connection with actions like those cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \15\ See supra, notes 7 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\16\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange ``provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and
persons associated with persons... and the prohibition or limitation by
the exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered
by the exchange or a member thereof.'' Finally, the Exchange also
believes the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(d)(1) and 6(d)(2)
of the Act,\17\ which require that the rules of an exchange with
respect to a disciplinary proceeding or proceeding that would limit or
prohibit access to or membership in the exchange require the exchange
to: provide adequate and specific notice of the charges brought against
a member or person associated with a member, provide an opportunity to
defend against such charges, keep a record, and provide details
regarding the findings and applicable sanctions in the event a
determination to impose a disciplinary sanction is made. The Exchange
believes that each of these requirements is addressed by the notice and
due process provisions included within proposed Rule 8.17. Importantly,
as noted above, the Exchange anticipates using the authority proposed
in this filing only in clear and egregious cases when necessary to
protect investors, other Members and the Exchange, and even in such
cases, the Respondent will be afforded due process in connection with
the suspension proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the Exchange believes that each self-regulatory organization should be
empowered to regulate trading occurring on their market consistent with
the Act and without regard to competitive issues. The Exchange is
requesting authority to take appropriate action if necessary for the
protection of investors, other Members and the Exchange.

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

    As explained above, a similar proposal was filed by the Exchange as
File No. SR-BATS-2015-57 and Amendment No. 1 thereto. The Exchange
received five comments in response to the Initial Proposal and
responded to such comments in the BATS Comment Response Letter.\18\ The
Exchange believes that the BATS Comment Response Letter as well as the
changes to the Initial Proposal that are reflected in this proposal
adequately address comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 will: (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 proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-BATS-2015-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-101. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-BATS-2015-101,
and should be submitted on or before December 15, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29843 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


How to Download Drafts of SHEDS-Multimedia (Residential Module) version
4 and Dietary Module version 1.0 from EPA’s Website

The SHEDS dietary and residential modules are now available for download
on the Office of Research and Development's National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL) website located at:
http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/sheds_mm.html (note:
please scroll down about half the page past the SHEDS v.3 section at the
top to the part entitled "Download Drafts of SHEDS-Multimedia
(Residential Module) version 4 and Dietary Module version 1.0" in order
to view the material.)  You will also find a copy of the same material
below with links to the same files.

Download Drafts of SHEDS-Multimedia (Residential Module) version 4 and
Dietary Module version 1.0

Links to download the two modules and their technical manuals and user
guides are provided below. The two modules are undergoing external
scientific peer review by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on July 20-22,
2010. All documents for this meeting are available in the Office of
Pesticide Programs public docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0383, and all,
excluding the Residential and Dietary Modules executable files, are
available online in the FDMS Docket System located at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov .

The annotated SHEDS SAS code, technical manual, graphical user
interface, and user guide provide a thorough perspective and
understanding of the SHEDS technical and usability aspects.

SAS version 9.1 or higher is required to run SHEDS-Multimedia version 4
and SHEDS-Dietary version 1.0.

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_INSTALLA
TION.pdf"  SHEDS_Installation.pdf  (PDF, 1 pp, 0.007 MB)

EPA's SHEDS-Residential version 4 model

EPA's SHEDS-Residential version 4 model is a physically-based,
probabilistic model that can simulate for a population of interest
cumulative (multiple chemicals) or aggregate (single chemical)
residential exposures over time via multiple routes of exposure for
different types of chemicals and scenarios. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and
Development, developed and funded SHEDS-Residential version 4 with
assistance from contractor Alion Science and Technology, Inc.

SHEDS-Residential version 4 is one module (along with the separate
SHEDS-Dietary module) of EPA’s more comprehensive human exposure
model, the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation model for
multimedia, multipathway chemicals (SHEDS-Multimedia), which can
simulate aggregate or cumulative exposures over time via multiple routes
of exposure (dietary & non-dietary) for different types of chemicals and
scenarios. SHEDS-Residential and SHEDS-Dietary will be merged together
in a future version of SHEDS-Multimedia.

SHEDS-Residential version 4 includes a case study example for
illustrative purposes, as well as a default file for non-chemical
specific inputs, as described in the Technical Manual and User Guide.
All input values used in the SHEDS-Residential model for a given
application should be entered or reviewed by the researcher so that the
model results are based on appropriate data sources for the given
application.

Version 4 of SHEDS-Residential reflects comments from EPA's August 2007
FIFRA SAP that reviewed SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 (the aggregate
residential version)[  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/081407_mtg.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2007/081407_mtg.htm ]. SHEDS
Residential version 4 will undergo external peer review by EPA's FIFRA
SAP July 20-22, 2010, and should be considered draft at this time.

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Resident
ialv4_Techmanual_06-16-2010.Final.pdf"
SHEDS_Residentialv4_Techmanual_06-16-2010.Final.pdf  (PDF, 194 pp, 1.36
MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Resident
ial_UsersGuide_6_16_2010.pdf"
SHEDS_Residential_UsersGuide_6_16_2010.pdf  (PDF, 144 pp, 2.29 MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Resident
ialv4_Setup_4.00.exe"  SHEDS_Residentialv4_Setup_4.00.exe  (EXE, 27.03
MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS%20Multim
edia%20QAPP-Rev1-Final.pdf"  SHEDS Multimedia QAPP-Rev1-Final.pdf  (pdf,
28 pp, 9.06 MB)

EPA's SHEDS-Dietary model version 1

EPA's SHEDS-Dietary model is a probabilistic, population-based dietary
exposure assessment model that simulates individual exposures to
chemicals in food and drinking water over different time periods (e.g.,
daily, yearly). SHEDS-Dietary is one module (along with the separate
SHEDS-Residential module) of EPA’s more comprehensive human exposure
model, the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation model for
multimedia, multipathway chemicals (SHEDS-Multimedia), which can
simulate aggregate or cumulative exposures over time via multiple routes
of exposure (dietary & non-dietary) for different types of chemicals and
scenarios. SHEDS-Residential and SHEDS-Dietary will be merged together
in a future version of SHEDS-Multimedia.

SHEDS-Dietary version 1 includes case study examples for illustrative
purposes, as described in the Technical Manual and User Guide. All input
values used in the SHEDS-Dietary model for a given application should be
entered or reviewed by the researcher so that the model results are
based on appropriate data sources for the given application.

Through its Office of Research and Development, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency developed and funded the SHEDS-Dietary
module with assistance from contractor Alion Science and Technology.
SHEDS-Dietary Version 1 will undergo external peer review by EPA's FIFRA
SAP July 20-22, 2010, and should be considered draft at this time.

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Dietary_
Setup_1.0.exe"  SHEDS_Dietary_Setup_1.0.exe  (EXE, 126.15 MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Dietary_
TechManual_06-16-2010_FINAL.pdf"
SHEDS_Dietary_Techmanual_06-16-2010.FINAL.pdf  (PDF, 73 pp, 1.70 MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Dietary_
TechManual_APPENDICES_06-16-2010_FINAL.pdf"
SHEDS_Dietary_TechManual_APPENDICES_06-16-2010_FINAL.pdf  (PDF, 163 pp,
0.96 MB)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/heasd/products/sheds_multimedia/files/SHEDS_Dietary_
UsersGuide_6_16_2010.pdf"  SHEDS_Dietary_UsersGuide_6-16-2010.pdf  (PDF,
151 pp, 10.20 MB)

Publications

Hore P, Zartarian V, Xue J, Özkaynak H, Wang SW, Yang YC, Chu PL,
Sheldon L, Robson M, Needham L, Barr D, Freeman N, Georgopoulos P, Lioy
PJ. (2006). Children's residential exposure to chlorpyrifos: Application
of CPPAES field measurements of chlorpyrifos and TCPy within
MENTOR/SHEDS-Pesticides model. Science of the Total Environment
366:525-537.

Zartarian VG, Özkaynak H, Burke JM, Zufall MJ, Rigas ML, and Furtaw Jr.
EJ.  (2000). A Modeling Framework For Estimating Children's Residential
Exposure and Dose to Chlorpyrifos Via Dermal Residue Contact and
Non-Dietary Ingestion.  Environmental Health Perspectives 108(6):
505-514.

Xue, J, Zartarian, VG, Wang, S-W, Liu, SV, Georgopoulos, P. (2010).
Probabilistic modeling of dietary arsenic exposure and dose and
evaluation with 2003-2004 NHANES Data.   HYPERLINK
"http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901205"
Environmental Health Perspectives 118: 345-350.

Contact

Valerie Zartarian,
Ph.D.
                           Jianping (Jim) Xue,
M.D., M.S.

(617) 918-1541 or   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>              (919) 541-7962 or
  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43943-43945]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17659]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0238; FRL-9913-73-Region-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New York State; Transportation Conformity Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The revision establishes transportation conformity
regulations for the State of New York. EPA is approving this revision
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 29, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 28, 2014.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2014-0238 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0238, Richard Ruvo, Air Programs Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region II address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2014-0238. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Clean Air and
Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the New York State Department of the Environmental
Conservation, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York
12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Zeman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the
purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after
1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of
the Clean Air Act for the following transportation related criteria
pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Conformity for purposes of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The transportation
conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 (``Federal conformity
rule'') and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR
51.390.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of section 176(c) of
the Clean Air Act, related to transportation conformity. Prior to
SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal
conformity rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU
amended CAA section 176(c)(4)(D) and EPA revised 40 CFR 51.390 to be
consistent with those amendments, state's SIPs were required to address
only the following three sections of the Federal conformity rule,
modified as appropriate to each state's circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments
to implement control measures that are not included in the
transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP)); and
40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to implement mitigation
measures). States are no longer required to submit conformity SIP
revisions that address the other sections of the Federal transportation
conformity rule.

III. What did the state submit and how did we evaluate it?

    On October 3, 2013, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP), to EPA for transportation conformity amendments filed for
adoption on August 14, 2013, and published in the New York State
Register (I.D. No. ENV-16-13-0001-A) on September 4, 2013. The SIP
revision included the repeal of the old Part 240, which was not
included in the SIP, and replacement with a new Part 240, ``Conformity
to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws'' and revisions to Part 200,
``General Provisions'' into Title 6 of the Official Compilation of
Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR). The
Part 240 revisions include cites to portions of the Federal statute and
regulations that are incorporated by reference into Part 240. This SIP
revision addresses the three provisions of the EPA Conformity Rule
required by CAA section 176(c)(4)(D): 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation
procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (control measures); and 40 CFR
93.125(c) (mitigation measures).
    We reviewed the submittals to assure consistency with the January
2009, ``Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity State
Implementation Plans (SIPs).'' This review can be found in the
technical support document that is part of the docket. The guidance
document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf. The guidance document states that each
state is only required to address and tailor the three aforementioned
sections of the Federal Conformity Rule to be included in their state
conformity SIPs. EPA's review of New York's SIP Revision indicates that
it is consistent with EPA's guidance in that it includes the three
aforementioned regulatory elements specified in CAA section
176(c)(4)(D). Consistent with the EPA Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures), New York State Part 240-2 identifies the
appropriate agencies, procedures, and allocation of responsibilities
for consultation. Specifically, New York State Part 240-2.10 provides
for appropriate public consultation/public involvement consistent with
40 CFR 93.105.
    With respect to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40
CFR 93.125(c), the proposed SIP specifies at 6 NYCRR 240-3.1 and 240-
3.2, respectively, that written commitments to control measures that
are not included in the transportation plan and TIP must be obtained
prior to a conformity determination and must demonstrate assurance that
they will be fulfilled, and that written commitments to mitigation
measures must be obtained prior to a positive conformity determination,
and the project sponsors must comply with such commitments. EPA is
approving 6 NYCRR Part 240 ``Conformity to State and Federal
Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects
Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Laws,'' that was published in the New York State Register and
became effective on September 13, 2013.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the New York SIP revisions for Transportation
Conformity, which were submitted on October 3, 2013. EPA is publishing
this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However,
in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective on September 29, 2014 without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by August 28, 2014. If EPA receives adverse
comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2014. 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 section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 25, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding in
numeric order an entry for Title 6, Part 240 and adding subtitles,
Subparts 240-1, 240-2 and 240-3, to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                    EPA-Approved New York State Regulations and Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State  effective
              New York State regulation                     date             Latest EPA approval date                         Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 6:

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Part 240, Conformity to State or Federal
 Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans,
 Programs and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved
 Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws.
Subpart 240-1, Transportation Conformity General               9/13/13  7/29/14, [Insert Federal Register
 Provisions.                                                             citation].
Subpart 240-2, Consultation.........................           9/13/13  7/29/14, [Insert Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
Subpart 240-3 Regional Transportation-Related                  9/13/13  7/29/14, [Insert Federal Register
 Emissions and Enforceability.                                           citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-17659 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7269]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02501]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71455; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue Its
Stock Borrow Program

January 31, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On December 10, 2013, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2013-13 pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 27, 2013.\3\ The
Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule change. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-71156 (Dec. 20,
2013), 78 FR 79028 (Dec. 27, 2013) (SR-NSCC-2013-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NSCC is amending its Rules and Procedures (``Rules'') to
discontinue its Stock Borrow Program. The effective date of the rule
change will be announced by NSCC via an Important Notice.
    Currently, NSCC Members may elect to participate in the Stock
Borrow Program by designating specific securities from their inventory
at the Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') as available to be lent in
the event that NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement (``CNS'') system cannot
complete a delivery of a security to a long Member because a short
Member has not completed its delivery to CNS. In such a case, if a
lender has identified such a security as available through the Stock
Borrow Program and the lender has a free excess position of the
security at DTC, NSCC initiates deliveries through CNS to the long
Member and sets up a pending receive for the lending Member. If the
position is not returned to the lender by the end of the settlement
day, i.e., the Member with the original obligation to deliver to CNS
does not complete that delivery, the lender receives full market value
for the securities through NSCC settlement.
    Usage of NSCC's Stock Borrow Program has declined over the past few
years. In 2007, NSCC borrowed a daily average of approximately $1.85
billion in market value at the close of each day from the approximately
21 Members that participated in the Stock Borrow Program. In October
2013, only three Members participated in the Stock Borrow Program and
the average daily value borrowed at the close of day during that month
was approximately $81 million. Usage of the program has continued to
drop since the end of October 2013. Given the reduction in the use of
the program, NSCC has determined that it is not economically efficient
to maintain the service.

III. Discussion and Commission Finding

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \4\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to, among other things,
``promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and . . . to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.'' \6\ The Commission
finds that NSCC's proposed rule change is consistent with these
requirements because discontinuing an underutilized service will enable
NSCC to allocate its resources to core clearing agency functions in a
more efficient and effective manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \5\ 12 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2013-13 be, and it hereby is,
approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02501 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P