[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15188-15190]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71700; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

March 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 February 28, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' 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 Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Priority Customer Rebate Program
(the ``Program'') \3\ to provide for a $0.20 per contract credit for
transactions in MIAX Select Symbols.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71283 (January 10,
2014), 79 FR 2914 (January 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2013-63); 71009
(December 6, 2013), 78 FR 75629 (December 12, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-
56).
    \4\ The term ``MIAX Select Symbols'' means options overlying
AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program is based on the substantially similar fees of another
competing options exchange.\5\ Under the Program, the Exchange credits
each Member the per contract amount set forth in the table below
resulting from each Priority Customer \6\ order transmitted by that
Member which is executed on the Exchange in all

multiply-listed option classes (excluding mini-options and executions
related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan referenced in Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain volume
thresholds in a month. The volume thresholds are calculated based on
the customer average daily volume over the course of the month. Volume
is recorded for and credits are delivered to the Member Firm that
submits the order to the Exchange. The Exchange aggregates the
contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and
executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated Members for
purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at least 75% common
ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or other interruption
of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange adjusts the national
customer volume in multiply-listed options for the duration of the
outage. A Member may request to receive its credit under the Program as
a separate direct payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
Fees Schedule, p. 4. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
66054 (December 23, 2011), 76 FR 82332 (December 30, 2011) (SR-CBOE-
2011-120); 68887 (February 8, 2013), 78 FR 10647 (February 14, 2013)
(SR-CBOE-2013-017).
    \6\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). See MIAX Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes modifying the Program to provide for a $0.20
per contract credit for transactions in MIAX Select Symbols. MIAX
Select Symbols will initially include options overlying AAPL, FB, EEM,
QQQ, and IWM. Thus, the Exchange will credit each Member $0.20 per
contract resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by
that Member executed on Exchange in AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM. The
$0.20 per contract credit would be in lieu of the applicable credit
that would otherwise apply to the transaction based on the volume
thresholds. The Exchange notes that all the other aspects of the
Program would continue to apply to the credits (e.g., the aggregation
of volume of affiliates, exclusion of contracts that are routed to away
exchanges, exclusion of mini-options . . . etc.).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1 (a) iii. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 71283 (January 10, 2014), 79 FR
2914 (January 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2013-63); 71009 (December 6, 2013),
78 FR 75629 (December 12, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if Member Firm ABC, Inc. (``ABC'') has enough Priority
Customer contracts to achieve 0.3% of the national customer volume in
multiply-listed option contracts during the month of October, ABC will
receive a credit of $0.10 for each Priority Customer contract executed
in the month of October. However, any qualifying Priority Customer
transactions during such month that occurred in AAPL, FB, EEM, QQQ, and
IWM would be credited at the $0.20 per contact rate versus the standard
credit of $0.10. Similarly, if Member Firm XYZ, Inc. (``XYZ'') has
enough Priority Customer contracts to achieve 2.5% of the national
customer volume in multiply-listed option contracts during the month of
October, XYZ will receive a credit of $0.18 for each Priority Customer
contract executed in the month of October. However, any qualifying
Priority Customer transactions during such month that occurred in AAPL,
FB, EEM, QQQ, and IWM would be credited at the $0.20 per contact rate
versus the standard credit of $0.18.
    The purpose of the amendment to the Program is to further encourage
Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the
Exchange in these high volume symbols. Increased Priority Customer
volume will provide for greater liquidity, which benefits all market
participants on the Exchange. The practice of incentivizing increased
retail customer order flow in order to attract professional liquidity
providers (Market-Makers) is, and has been, commonly practiced in the
options markets. As such, marketing fee programs,\8\ and customer
posting incentive programs,\9\ are based on attracting public customer
order flow. The practice of providing additional incentives to increase
order flow in high volume symbols is, and has been, commonly practiced
in the options markets.\10\ The Program similarly intends to attract
Priority Customer order flow, which will increase liquidity, thereby
providing greater trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other
market participants and causing a corresponding increase in order flow
from such other market participants in these select symbols. Increasing
the number of orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter
and more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1(b).
    \9\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule, page 4 (section titled
``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for
Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
    \10\ See International Securities Exchange, LLC, Schedule of
Fees, p. 6 (providing reduced fee rates for order flow in Select
Symbols); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Pricing Schedule, Section I (providing a
rebate for adding liquidity in SPY); NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule,
page 4 (section titled ``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the
general revenues of the Exchange.\11\ The Exchange calculates volume
thresholds on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Despite providing credits under the Program, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to have adequate resources to fund
its regulatory program and fulfill its responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization while the Program will be in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the new transaction fees
beginning March 1, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Priority Customer Rebate
Program is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The
Program is reasonably designed because it will incent providers of
Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow
to the Exchange in order to receive a credit in a manner that enables
the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants. The proposal to increase
the incentives in the high volume select symbols is also reasonably
designed to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange with other
options exchanges that also offer increased incentives to higher volume
symbols. The proposed rebate program is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all
Priority Customer orders in the select symbols. All similarly situated
Priority Customer orders in the select symbols are subject to the same
rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that
are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Program is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Priority Customer
order flow qualifies for the Program, an increase in Priority Customer
order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefit all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance

of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by
incenting Members to direct their Priority Customer orders in the
select symbols to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of
quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded here in those
symbols. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden on
non-Priority Customers or trading in non-select symbols, the Exchange
believes that this is appropriate because the proposed changes to the
rebate program should incent Members to direct additional order flow to
the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the
quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded
here in those symbols. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all
the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market liquidity in such select symbols. Enhanced market quality and
increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase
in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market
participants and improve competition on the Exchange in such select
symbols. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment because it reduces the Exchange's fees in
a manner that encourages market participants to direct their customer
order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction
volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among
options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a
volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow like the one
being proposed in this filing is consistent with the above-mentioned
goals of the Act. This is especially true for the smaller options
markets, such as MIAX, which is competing for volume with much larger
exchanges that dominate the options trading industry. As a new
exchange, MIAX has a nominal percentage of the average daily trading
volume in options, so it is unlikely that the customer rebate program
could cause any competitive harm to the options market or to market
participants. Rather, the customer rebate program is a modest attempt
by a small options market to attract order volume away from larger
competitors by adopting an innovative pricing strategy. The Exchange
notes that if the rebate program resulted in a modest percentage
increase in the average daily trading volume in options executing on
MIAX, while such percentage would represent a large volume increase for
MIAX, it would represent a minimal reduction in volume of its larger
competitors in the industry. The Exchange believes that the proposal
will help further competition, because market participants will have
yet another additional option in determining where to execute orders
and post liquidity if they factor the benefits of a customer rebate
program into the determination.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR- MIAX-2014-13 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-MIAX-2014-13. 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-MIAX-2014-13 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05859 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29964-29968]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12500]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0192; FRL-9927-96-Region-5]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio: Cleveland and
Delta; Determination of Attainment for the 2008 Lead Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 20, 2015, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA) submitted a request to the Environmental Protections Agency
(EPA) to make a determination under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the
Cleveland and Delta nonattainment areas have attained the 2008 lead
(Pb) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). In this
action, EPA is determining that the Cleveland and Delta nonattainment
areas (hereafter also referred to as the ``Cleveland area'', ``Delta
area'' or ``areas'') have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These
determinations of attainment are based upon complete, quality-assured
and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2012-2014 design
period showing that the areas have monitored attainment of the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Additionally, as a result of this determination, EPA is
suspending the requirements for the areas to submit attainment
demonstrations, together with reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, contingency measures
for failure to meet RFP, and attainment deadlines for as long as the
areas continue to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 27, 2015, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 25, 2015. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0192, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2015-0192. 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 docket are listed in the
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 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
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, at
(312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance 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 action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2008 Pb NAAQS
IV. Do the Cleveland and Delta areas meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS?
V. What is the effect of this action?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the Cleveland area and
Delta area have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. This is based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for
the 2012-2014 monitoring period showing that the areas have monitored
attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    Further, with this determination of attainment, the requirements
for the Cleveland and Delta areas to submit attainment demonstrations
together with RACM, RFP plans, and contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP and attainment deadlines are suspended for as long as the area
continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. As discussed below, this action
is consistent with EPA's regulations and with its longstanding
interpretation of subpart 1 of part D of the CAA.
    If either the Cleveland area or the Delta area violates the 2008 Pb
NAAQS after this action, the basis for the suspension of these
attainment planning

requirements would no longer exist for that area, and the area would
thereafter have to address applicable requirements.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary
and secondary Pb NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a
three-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. This is the ``2008 Pb NAAQS.'' On
November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published its initial air quality
designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring
data from those monitors for calendar years 2007-2009. These
designations became effective on December 31, 2010.\1\ The Cleveland
and Delta areas were designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
See 40 CFR 81.343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA completed a second and final round of designations for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No
additional areas in Ohio were designated as nonattainment for the
2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 20, 2015, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to EPA to
make a determination that the Cleveland and Delta areas have attained
the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured, quality-
controlled monitoring data from 2012 through 2014. For the reasons set
forth in this notice, EPA finds the request approvable.

III. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2008 Pb NAAQS

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has
become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10, 1995). In 2004, EPA indicated
its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to the (fine
particulates) PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. For a full discussion on EPA's application of this policy,
see section III of the Bristol, Tennessee Determination of Attainment
for the 2008 Pb Standards (77 FR 35653).

IV. Do the Cleveland and Delta areas meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS?

A. Criteria

    Today's rulemaking assesses whether the Cleveland and Delta areas
have attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS, based on the most recent three years
of quality-assured data. The Cleveland area, which surrounds the Ferro
Corporation facility, is comprised of the portions of Cuyahoga County
that are bounded on the west by Washington Park Blvd./Crete Ave./East
49th St., on the east by East 71st St., on the north by Fleet Ave., and
on the south by Grant Ave. The Delta area, which surrounds the Bunting
Bearings facility, is comprised of the portions of Fulton County that
are bounded by sections 12 and 13 of York Township and sections 7 and
18 of Swan Creek Township.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and
secondary Pb standards are met when the maximum arithmetic three-month
mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Cleveland
and Delta areas in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50,
appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured,
certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
This review addresses air quality data collected in the 2012-2014
period which are the most recent quality-assured data available.

B. Cleveland Area Air Quality

    The 39-035-0049 monitoring site is a Federal reference method (FRM)
source-oriented monitor which meets the quality assurance requirements
of 40 CFR 58, appendix A. After the Ferro facility completed repairs,
installed additional back-up control devices, and implemented a
preventative maintenance plan by 2012, the Pb values have been well
below the standard.
    Table 1 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for the
Cleveland area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ When calculating a three-month rolling average, the first
two data points, November through January for 2012 and December
through February of 2012, would additionally use data from November
and December of 2011.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Location               AQS site ID     3-month period       2012            2013            2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro--E. 56th St., Cleveland  39-035-0049 #1..  Nov-Jan \2\....            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Dec-Feb........            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                                 Jan-Mar........            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Feb-Apr........            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Mar-May........            0.03            0.02            0.01
                                                 Apr-Jun........            0.03            0.02            0.01
                                                 May-July.......            0.03            0.02            0.01
                                                 Jun-Aug........            0.02            0.02            0.02
                                                 July-Sept......            0.02            0.02            0.01
                                                 Aug-Oct........            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Sept-Nov.......            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                                 Oct-Dec........            0.01            0.01            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for the
co-located monitor in the Cleveland area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Location               AQS site ID     3-month period       2012            2013            2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferro--E. 56th St., Cleveland  39-035-0049 #2..  Nov-Jan \3\....            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Dec-Feb........            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                                 Jan-Mar........            0.02            0.01            0.01
                                                 Feb-Apr........            0.03            0.01            0.01
                                                 Mar-May........            0.03            0.02            0.01
                                                 Apr-Jun........            0.03            0.03            0.01
                                                 May-July.......            0.03            0.02            0.01
                                                 Jun-Aug........            0.02            0.02            0.02
                                                 July-Sept......            0.02            0.02            0.01
                                                 Aug-Oct........            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                                 Sept-Nov.......            0.01            0.01            0.01
                                                 Oct-Dec........            0.01            0.01            0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Tables 1 and 2 are complete, quality-assured, and
certified and show 0.03 [micro]g/m\3\ as the highest three-month
rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2012 data set includes data from November and December
of 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ferro Corporation facility's National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
emissions in 2011 were 0.0046 tons per year (tpy). With the combination
of completed repairs, installation of additional back-up control
devices, and implementation of a preventative maintenance plan at the
facility, the design value at the monitor is now about a fifth of the
standard.
    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Cleveland area has
attained and continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS, with a design value
of 0.03 [micro]g/m\3\ for the period of 2012-2014.

 C. Delta Area Air Quality

    The 39-051-0001 monitoring site is a FRM source-oriented monitor
which meets the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 58, appendix
A. After the Bunting Bearings facility began compliance with Federally
enforceable lead emissions limits and implemented a preventative
maintenance plan by 2012, the Pb values have been well below the
standard.
    Table 3 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for the
Delta area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Location               AQS site ID     3-month period       2012            2013            2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunting Bearings Facility--    39-051-0001 #1..  Nov-Jan \4\....            0.07            0.04            0.05
 200 Van Buren St., Delta.                       Dec-Feb........            0.05            0.05            0.04
                                                 Jan-Mar........            0.06            0.04            0.05
                                                 Feb-Apr........            0.07            0.03            0.04
                                                 Mar-May........            0.08            0.03            0.03
                                                 Apr-Jun........            0.08            0.04            0.03
                                                 May-July.......            0.08            0.04            0.03
                                                 Jun-Aug........            0.06            0.04            0.04
                                                 July-Sept......            0.08            0.03            0.03
                                                 Aug-Oct........            0.06            0.05            0.04
                                                 Sept-Nov.......            0.06            0.06            0.09
                                                 Oct-Dec........            0.02            0.06            0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows the 2012-2014 three-month rolling averages for the
co-located monitor in the Delta area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 2012 data set includes data from November and December
of 2011.
    \5\ The 2012 data set includes data from November and December
of 2011.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Location               AQS site ID     3-month period       2012            2013            2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunting Bearings Facility--    39-051-0001 #2..  Nov-Jan \5\....            0.07            0.03            0.05
 200 Van Buren St., Delta.                       Dec-Feb........            0.04            0.03            0.02
                                                 Jan-Mar........            0.06            0.03            0.03
                                                 Feb-Apr........            0.08            0.02            0.03
                                                 Mar-May........            0.08            0.03            0.03
                                                 Apr-Jun........            0.08            0.03            0.03
                                                 May-July.......            0.07            0.04            0.03
                                                 Jun-Aug........            0.05            0.04            0.04
                                                 July-Sept......            0.08            0.04            0.03
                                                 Aug-Oct........            0.06            0.06            0.04
                                                 Sept-Nov.......            0.06            0.06            0.08
                                                 Oct-Dec........            0.02            0.06            0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Tables 3 and 4 are complete, quality-assured, and
certified and show 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ as the highest three-month
rolling average.
    The Bunting Bearings facility's NEI emissions in 2011 were 0.0035
tpy. With the combination of compliance with Federally enforceable lead
emissions limits and implementation of a preventative maintenance plan,
the design value at the monitor is now about three-fifths of the
standard.
    EPA's review of these data indicates that the Delta area has
attained and continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS, with a design value
of 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ for the period of 2012-2014.

V. What is the effect of this action?

    Based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2012-
2014, EPA is determining that the Cleveland and Delta areas have
attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirements for the Ohio EPA to submit
attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency
measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008
Pb NAAQS for the Cleveland and Delta areas are suspended for as long as
the areas continue to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA rulemaking is
consistent and in keeping with its long-held interpretation of CAA
requirements, as well as with EPA's regulations for similar
determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR 51.918) and PM2.5 (see
40 CFR 51.1004(c)).
    This action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to
attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA.
This action does not involve approving a maintenance plan for the area
as required under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the
area has met all other requirements for redesignation. The Cleveland
and Delta areas remain designated nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
until such time as EPA determines that the areas meet the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to
redesignate the area.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 27, 2015
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by June 25, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 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.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July
27, 2015.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action makes attainment determinations for the Cleveland and
Delta areas for the 2008 lead NAAQS based on air quality data and
results in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and does not
impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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, the attainment determination is not approved to apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.1892 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1892  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (f) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the three-
year period 2012 to 2014, EPA determined that the Cleveland and Delta,
OH lead nonattainment areas have attained the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This clean data determination
suspends the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as this
area continues to meet the 2008 lead NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2015-12500 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11953-11954]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-168]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61656; File No. SR-CHX-2010-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Chicago Stock Exchange,
Inc. To Aggregate Trading Activity of Affiliated Participants To
Calculate Average Daily Trading Volume for Billing Purposes

March 5, 2010.
    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 February 26, 2010, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective March 1, 2010, to
aggregate the activity of affiliate entities when computing and
assessing certain fees of the Exchange. The text of this proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/
rules/proposed_rules.htm and in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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
    Through this filing, the Exchange would amend its Fee Schedule,
effective March 1, 2010, to permit the aggregation of the trading
activity of affiliated CHX Participants for the purposes of calculating
and assessing certain fees. A Participant must request the aggregation
of affiliate activity by submitting an Application to the Exchange.\5\
The Exchange shall have the right to request additional information in
order to verify the affiliate status of an entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange will post the Application form on its public
Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once approved, the Exchange will aggregate the activity of
affiliated

Participants for the calculation of its Matching System Port Charges
under to Section D of its Fee Schedule and its Transaction Fees for
single-sided orders under to Section E.1. of its Fee Schedule. Pursuant
to Section D, the Exchange normally charges a fee for each ``port'' or
logical network connection to the CHX network. Port charges are not
assessed for connections to the Matching System for a month in which a
Participant Firm executes an average daily volume of 5 million or more
provide shares in the Matching System during the month. Pursuant to
Section E.1. of the Fee Schedule, Participants pay fees and receive
rebates for trades executed in our Matching System whenever they take
or provide liquidity, respectively. The amount of those fees and
rebates vary depending on whether the Participant executes an average
daily volume in excess of 500,000 or 5 million provide shares.
    The current proposal would permit two or more Participants which
are ``affiliates,'' as defined, to aggregate their trade volume for
purposes of these fee computations. An ``affiliate'' of a Participant
is defined as any wholly owned subsidiary, parent or sister of the
Participant that is also a Participant. A ``wholly owned subsidiary''
is defined as a subsidiary of a Participant, 100% of whose voting stock
or comparable ownership interest is owned by the Participant, either
directly or indirectly through other wholly owned subsidiaries. A
``parent'' is defined as an entity that directly or indirectly owns
100% of the voting stock or comparable ownership interest of a
Participant. A ``sister'' is defined as an entity, 100% of whose voting
stock or comparable ownership interest is owned by a parent that also
owns 100% of the voting stock or comparable ownership interest of a
Participant.
    As noted above, a Participant must apply for this treatment on
behalf of itself and its affiliate(s). The applicant would be
responsible for immediately notifying the Exchange if the status of any
of the affiliated entities changed at some point in the future. For
example, if a Participant had applied for and been approved to
aggregate the trading volume of itself and a sister company and their
common parent company later sold the sister company to an unaffiliated
third party, then the Participant must immediately notify the Exchange
that the two companies are no longer affiliated. Finally, the Exchange
is only obligated to aggregate the volume of affiliates each of which
are Participants holding a trading permit. The trading volume of
entities which are not Exchange Participants will not be aggregated
with that of Participants, even if the two entities are affiliates as
defined.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the aggregation policy effective
March 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members. Among other things, the Exchange
believes that the aggregation policy fairly allows affiliated
Participants to combine their trading volumes for purpose of certain
fee calculations and may, as a result, induce such firms to send
additional orders to the Exchange for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2010-04 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-CHX-2010-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-
2010-04 and should be submitted on or before April 2, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5298 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P