From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:04 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: COMMENTS? -- coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Hope you're well.

Thanks again for the time to respond on these issues.  Below are the COETF's responses to EPA's March 9, 2021, requests relating to "PQBS category source file" issue nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and "Non-category source file" issue nos. 2 and 3.  Note that we are still reviewing EPA's allowable emission rate files for both the PQBS category and Non-category source files and will provide separate responses on those issues as soon as possible.

PQBS category source file

 Industry Average Emission Factors vs. ICR Test Data at Same Facility  -  EPA requested that the COETF identify the affected facilities/units where ICR test data should be used for untested units at the same facility.  The attached spreadsheet (see "Emissions for Non-Tested Units at Facilities that Tested 031621.xlsx") provides the corrected actual emissions (TPY) incorporating these changes.  The affected facilities and emission units are:

          Clairton Battery Stacks for Batteries 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, and C (Battery B Stack was ICR tested);
          Monessen Battery 1B Stack (Battery 2 Stack was ICR tested);
          Burns Harbor Battery 1 Stack (Battery 2 Stack was ICR tested); and,
          Burns Harbor Battery 1 Pushing Baghouse (Battery 2 Pushing Baghouse was ICR tested).

 Allowable Emission Rates  -  Under review

 Fugitive Pushing Emissions  -  The COETF agrees with EPA's responses dated March 9, 2021, on the fugitive pushing emissions for acid gases, dioxin/furans, and volatile HAPs.

 Pushing Baghouse Emissions (ABC Coke)  -  The COETF agrees with EPA's responses dated March 9, 2021, on the ABC Coke Pushing Baghouse emissions estimates.

 Production Rates (ABC Coke)  -  The COETF agrees with EPA's responses dated March 9, 2021, on the coke production rates as they are applied to the ABC Coke Quench Tower emission estimates.  Please note that the coke production rates applied to the Bluestone Coke Quench Towers should also be reversed.  The Bluestone Coke North Quench Tower serves Battery 5 and the South Tower serves Batteries 3 and 4.

Non-category source file

 Allowable Emission Rates  -  Under review

 Acute Emissions Multiplier  -  The COETF still believes that EPA should use an annual-to-hourly scale-up factor of 2.0 for all sources, including emergency flares.  The 2.0 factor is more appropriate because it is derived from maximum charging/pushing rates, while the 10 factor is simply based on the facility (Burns Harbor) that has the greatest number of emergency flares and is not related to allowable emissions.

 Inconsistent Source Heights  -  The COETF agrees with EPA's response dated March 9, 2021, on the physical battery heights.

Please contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< Emissions for Non-Tested Units at Facilities that Tested 031621.xlsx >>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 6:10 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: COMMENTS? -- coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Thanks for the update.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:33 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: COMMENTS? -- coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hi, Donna Lee.  Thanks for being patient with us on this.

Rest assured that our top priority at the moment is responding to you on the questions/comments you sent us this week.  We're working our way through all of them as quickly as we can.

We plan to respond to you by next Wednesday (March 17) on most of them, including those that pertain to "PQBS category source file" issue nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and "Non-category source file" issue no. 3.  On the remaining questions/comments, which pertain to files we had not seen until this week (i.e., "PQBS category source file" issue no. 2 and "Non-category source file" issue nos. 1 and 2), we are still working our way through them and do not have a definitive date for you yet.

Please contact me if you have questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:05 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: COMMENTS? -- coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hi  -  When do you think the industry will have comments? We need to move forward next week.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Glad to answer any questions you have, Donna Lee.

In that regard, the COETF is having a call Wednesday morning on several matters.  We'll target responding to you afterwards on your question on issue no. 1 with a list of emission units that should be changed from industry average values to ICR test values.

In advance of that call, we'd appreciate your questions/comments on the other issues we raised  -  particularly issue nos. 2 and 3 for the source category files.  That will allow us to make good use of our call and respond back to you expeditiously.

Thanks, DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:37 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

In regard to #1, other than Burns Harbor baghouse #2, what are the other facilities/units where there were units that were tested and could be used for untested units at same facility? This is a surprising comment because we provided in the first files we sent our approach to filling in missing data. Looking back in my notes, the discussion was focused heavily on whole facilities that did not test, and not on untested units at (partially) tested facilities. Since there weren't many facilities that tested, Im hoping there aren't too many of these cases because this change would propagate through a lot of files.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 7:18 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Hope you're well.

Thanks again for the compiled modeling files you sent us on March 1.  The consultants who are assisting the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) in the RTR effort, Montrose and AECOM, have started reviewing the populated emissions files.  They have identified several questions/issues that we wanted to call to your attention right away, so EPA does not get too far along in its QA review without correcting them.

Below is a list of questions/issues identified so far (we may have others as we continue our review):

PQBS category source file
 Industry average emissions factors vs. ICR test data at the same facilities  -  The emissions spreadsheet uses industry average emissions factors for all emission units that were not ICR tested, even when the same type of emission unit was tested at the same facility.  For example, for Burns Harbor baghouse #2 (which was tested), the spreadsheet uses the ICR test data-derived emission factors, but for baghouse #1 (which was not tested) the spreadsheet uses industry average emissions factors.  When ICR test data are available for a facility, we believe those data should be used for all similar emission units at the facility because ICR test data best reflect the particular type of coal, the same coking time and other operating practices, etc. and, so, is more representative than industry average emission factors.  We ask EPA to correct the spreadsheet to use the ICR test-derived emissions factors for all similar emission units at ICR tested facilities.

 Allowable emission rates  -  In many instances the allowable emission rates are orders of magnitude higher than the expected values based on maximum production levels.  It is unclear how EPA derived these values and some of the resulting emission rates are wholly implausible.  The allowable emission rate for each emission unit should be derived (as EPA did in the Taconite RTR, for example) by multiplying the actual emission rate of the emission unit by the ratio of the maximum production rate for the facility to the actual production rate for that facility in a representative year.  The COETF discussed this issue with EPA previously and provided the actual and maximum production rates for all COETF member facilities (see Table 1 below).  We ask that EPA use the actual-to-allowable ratios in Table 1 to calculate the allowable emission rates for each facility.

 Fugitive pushing emissions  -  The fugitive pushing emissions for gaseous pollutants are up to orders of magnitude higher than the correct values.  We believe this problem stems from the use of PM speciation factors for gaseous pollutants in the Coke_Fugitive_Emissions spreadsheet.  The PM speciation factor approach we recommended is applicable only to particulate pollutants, such as the HAP metals and semi-volatiles that were tested at the ABC Coke and Burns Harbor baghouse inlets by EPA in 1998.  Fugitive pushing emissions for gaseous pollutants, including the volatile HAPs and acid gases (HCl, HF, and HCN), should be calculated using the appropriate PQBS ICR industry test data-derived emission factor times the annual coke production, adjusted for the capture efficiency.  These emission factors, taken from the most recent (2/15/2021) Whole Industry Test Data Spreadsheet (Tab A-3. Industry Default EFactors), are listed in Table 2 below.

      For example, the HCl pushing emission factor for foundry coke plants is 1.00E-03 lb/ton coke.  For ABC Coke Battery No. 1, which produced 377,606 tons of coke in 2015, the total HCl emission from pushing would be:

      (1.00E-03 lb/ton coke)(377,606 tons coke/year)/(2000 lb/ton) = 0.189 ton/year

      Accounting for the pushing capture efficiency of 95.02%, the fugitive HCl emissions would be:

                  (0.189 tons/year)(1  -  0.9502) = 0.009 ton/year

      The Category Source file lists ABC Coke actual fugitive HCl emissions for Battery No. 1 at 6.68 tons/year, a factor of about 700 higher.  We ask that EPA correct these values using the appropriate ICR test data emission factors.

 Pushing baghouse emissions (ABC Coke)  -  The pushing baghouse emissions factors at ABC Coke are also significantly overstated.  It's unclear how the spreadsheet values were derived, so we ask EPA to provide the calculations, including the emissions factor that was used, so we can respond more fully.

 Production rates (ABC Coke)  -  The spreadsheet applies the coke production rate for Battery 1 to the North tower and the coke production rate for Battery 5-6 to the South tower.  These should be reversed.

Non-category source file
 Allowable emission rates  -  As with the source category file, the allowable emission rates for non-category sources are orders of magnitude higher than the expected values.  We ask that the actual-to-allowable ratios in Table 1 below be used to calculate the allowable emission rates for non-category sources.

 Acute emissions multiplier  -  The spreadsheet uses an annual-to-hourly emissions multiplier of 2.0 for all sources except flares, which has a multiplier of 10.  Why did EPA not use the same 2.0 multiplier?

 Inconsistent source heights  -

          Cells AP4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 for ABC Coke have inconsistent battery heights in comparison to AP3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.  Please revise.

          Cells AP100-102, 104-106, 108-110, 112-114, 116-118 for AKS-Follansbee (Mountain State Carbon) have inconsistent battery heights in comparison to AP104, 107, 111, 115.  Please revise.

            *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *            *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *

We greatly appreciate your efforts addressing these questions/issues and look forward to EPA's responses.  Given the time sensitivity of EPA's QA review, the COETF can provide the corrected emissions files if doing so would be helpful and if EPA indicates that it will use the corrected files.  Please let us know.
Thanks, DCA

                        *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           *           * *

Table 1:  Ratios of Actual-to-Potential Coal Charge to be Used for Estimating Potential Emissions from Actual Emissions

Table 2:  Pushing Emission Factors to be Used in the Calculation of Fugitive Pushing Emissions for Gaseous Pollutants

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 1:07 PM
To: 'Jones, DonnaLee'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Agreed!  Thanks, Donna Lee.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 12:46 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: coke model files have gone to EPA division QA

Hello David and Katie. Here are the compiled modeling files that I sent to my division for QA. It may take a couple of weeks (or more) for this review. We use an outside contractor to check these files, mostly for proper coding and mathematical inconsistencies.  At that point, if no errors or after errors are corrected, the files go on to the risk modelers who check for consistencies in modeling parameters and locations. At that point, if no errors or after correction of errors, we will post the files to the public NESHAP website while the risk modeling is being done. I will keep you both posted on all steps in the process.

Thanks to you and your staff and collaborators for the help working with us to get the data in best condition possible. It's been a long, sometimes hard journey to this point, so we should all congratulate ourselves!

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44494-44497]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18378]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 122

[EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0142; FRL-9705-6]
RIN 2040-AF40

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Removal of Vacated Elements
in Response to 2011 Court Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending its regulations to eliminate the
requirement that an owner or operator of a Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) that ``proposes to discharge'' must apply for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This
rulemaking also removes the voluntary certification option for
unpermitted CAFOs because removal of the ``propose to discharge''
requirement renders the certification option unnecessary. Its purpose
had been to allow CAFO owners and operators to certify that they were
not violating the requirement that owners or operators of CAFOs that
propose to discharge must seek permit coverage. Both of these

provisions were included in the EPA's rulemaking entitled ``Revised
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations in Response to the Waterkeeper Decision,'' (the 2008 CAFO
Rule).

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The record for this rulemaking is available for inspection
and copying at the Water Docket, located at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The
record is also available via the EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0142. The rule
and key supporting documents are also available electronically on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/caforule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Louis
Eby, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information
II. Background and Rationale for Action
III. Implementation
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
V. Statutory Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to CAFOs as specified in section 502(14) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14) and defined in the NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. Table 1.1 provides a list of standard
industrial codes for operations potentially regulated under this
revised rule. The rule also applies to States and Tribes with
authorized NPDES Programs.

                            Table 1.1--Operations Potentially Regulated by This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               North American       Standard
                                                                                Industry         Industrial
            Category                    Examples of regulated entities         Classification    Classification
                                                                               System (NAICS)         (SIC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                         Operators of animal production operations
                                  that meet the definition of a CAFO:
                                    Beef cattle feedlots (including veal                112112              0211
                                     calves).
                                    Beef cattle ranching and farming........            112111              0212
                                    Hogs....................................             11221              0213
                                    Sheep and Goats.........................      11241, 11242              0214
                                    General livestock except dairy and                   11299              0219
                                     poultry.
                                    Dairy farms.............................             11212              0241
                                    Broilers, fryers, and roaster chickens..             11232              0251
                                    Chicken eggs............................             11231              0252
                                    Turkey and turkey eggs..................             11233              0253
                                    Poultry hatcheries......................             11234              0254
                                    Poultry and eggs........................             11239              0259
                                    Ducks...................................             11239              0259
                                    Horses and other equines................             11292              0272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
affected. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the definitions and other
provisions of 40 CFR 122.23.

II. Background and Rationale for Action

    On November 20, 2008, the EPA published a final rule (73 FR 70418)
that revised the NPDES permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for CAFOs in response to the order issued by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Waterkeeper
Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2008 CAFO Rule
included a number of changes, including a requirement that CAFO owners
or operators that discharge or propose to discharge must apply for an
NPDES permit. The 2008 CAFO Rule also created a voluntary option for
unpermitted CAFO owners and operators to certify to the permitting
authority that the CAFO does not discharge or propose to discharge.
    On March 15, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (the Court) issued an opinion that, among other things, vacated
those portions of the 2008 CAFO Rule requiring CAFOs that propose to
discharge to apply for an NPDES permit. National Pork Producers Council
v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 756 (5th Cir. 2011). This action removes from the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the specific ``propose to discharge''
requirement in 40 CFR 122.23(d).
    Today's action also deletes the timing requirements in 40 CFR
122.23(f) related to when CAFO owners and operators must seek coverage
under an NPDES permit. These provisions extended the time by which
facilities newly required to obtain NPDES permits must apply for a
permit. The date-specific deadlines in those sections have passed. The
revision clarifies that all CAFOs must have a permit at the time that
they discharge.
    The rule also removes 40 CFR 122.23(g) to make conforming changes
to EPA's requirements for renewing permit coverage.
    Also, this action removes from the CFR the option in 40 CFR
122.23(i) and (j) for owners and operators to

voluntarily certify that a CAFO does not discharge or propose to
discharge. The option provides that properly certified CAFOs would
``not be in violation of the requirement that CAFOs that propose to
discharge seek permit coverage. * * *'' Removing the requirement that
CAFOs apply for permits if they ``propose to discharge'' renders the
option to certify unnecessary and therefore the EPA is eliminating it.
    The EPA is not providing an opportunity for comment on this final
rule. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) makes provision
for the procedural path we are following in this action. In general,
the APA requires that general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be
published in the Federal Register. Such notice must provide an
opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking process. The APA
does provide an avenue for an agency to directly issue a final
rulemaking in certain specific instances. This may occur, in
particular, when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued)
that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    The EPA finds that a notice-and-comment rulemaking is unnecessary
and not in the public interest because this action is ministerial in
nature. The EPA has no discretion given the specific circumstances
presented in the Court's opinion. The EPA is bound by the decisions of
the court and must act in accordance with that decision. The EPA
accepts the decision of the Court that vacated the requirement that
CAFOs that propose to discharge apply for NPDES permits and the EPA
lacks discretion to reach a different conclusion. Providing an
opportunity for notice and comment is therefore unnecessary and would
not serve any public interest.

III. Implementation

    For the reasons cited above, the EPA is making this action
effective upon publication. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action removes
content from the CFR that has been found to be contrary to the CWA by a
United States Court of Appeals. This is a ministerial but necessary
action on the part of the EPA. Given the EPA's lack of discretion in
this matter, the EPA has good cause to act in the public interest to
implement the court's remedy by amending the CFR without delay.
    The deadline has passed by which states were required to make any
changes to their approved state NPDES program legal authorities
necessary to conform to the 2008 CAFO Rule. States that have not yet
done so must make the necessary changes to conform to the 2008 CAFO
Rule, less the vacated provisions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This rule withdraws Federal requirements applicable to CAFOs that
propose to discharge as well as the option to certify that a CAFO does
not discharge or propose to discharge. It imposes no regulatory
requirements on any person or entity, does not interfere with the
action or planned action of another agency, and does not have any
budgetary impacts or raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule
imposes no additional cost on the regulated community. The rule imposes
no additional effort on the State regulators. Thus, this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011) and is therefore not subject to review under
the Executive Orders.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), because it is administratively withdrawing Federal
requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Today's final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. Although
the rule is subject to the APA, the Agency has invoked the ``good
cause'' exemption under 5 USC 553(b), therefore it is not subject to
the notice and comment requirement.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
Similarly, the EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments and is therefore not subject to UMRA section 203.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule imposes no regulatory
requirements on any State, Tribal, or local government. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any Tribal government.
It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and the EPA has no
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this rule present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it merely removes
regulations that were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals and,
therefore, does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established an effective date of July 30, 2012.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Statutory Authority

    This rule is issued under the authority of sections 101, 301, 304,
306, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA. 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316,
1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: July 19, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 122 is amended
as follows:

PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

0
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
2. Section 122.23 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the heading of paragraph (d).
0
b. By revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
c. By revising paragraph (f).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraph (g).
0
e. By removing paragraphs (i) and (j).

Sec.  122.23  Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (d) NPDES permit authorization.--(1) Permit Requirement. A CAFO
must not discharge unless the discharge is authorized by an NPDES
permit. In order to obtain authorization under an NPDES permit, the
CAFO owner or operator must either apply for an individual NPDES permit
or submit a notice of intent for coverage under an NPDES general
permit.
* * * * *
    (f) By when must the owner or operator of a CAFO have an NPDES
permit if it discharges? A CAFO must be covered by a permit at the time
that it discharges.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-18378 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 53809]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

August 25, 2020.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP20-1115-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Addition of Stevens County
MN18 Receipt Point to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200824-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1117-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-08-21 Negotiated Rate
Agreement to be effective 8/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200824-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 25, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19110 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47461-47466]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17194]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78339; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Functionality Offered by the Exchange's Options Platform To: Modify
Various Rules To Eliminate the Display-Price Sliding Option; Modify
Various Rules To Eliminate Price Improving Orders; and Adopt the Step
Up Mechanism

July 15, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 11, 2016, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it 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)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal related to functionality offered by
the Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to: (i) Modify
various rules to eliminate the display-price sliding option; (ii)
modify various rules to eliminate Price Improving Orders, as defined
below; and (iii) adopt the Step Up Mechanism, as described below.
    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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is filing this proposal related to functionality
offered by EDGX Options to: (i) Modify various rules to eliminate the
display-price sliding option; (ii) modify various rules to eliminate
Price Improving Orders, as defined below; and (iii) adopt the Step Up
Mechanism, as described below.
Elimination of the Display-Price Sliding Option
    The Exchange currently offers various forms of sliding which, in
all cases, result in the re-pricing of an order to, or ranking and/or
display of an order at, a price other than an order's limit price in
order to comply with applicable securities laws and/or Exchange rules.
Specifically, the Exchange offers: (i) The display-price sliding
process, pursuant to Rule 21.1(h); and (ii) the Price Adjust process,
pursuant to Rule 21.1(i). Under the display-price sliding process an
order that, at the time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected
Quotation of another options exchange will be ranked at the locking
price in the EDGX Options Book and displayed by the System \5\ at one
minimum price variation below the current National Best Offer (``NBO'')
\6\ (for bids) or one

minimum price variation above the current National Best Bid (``NBB'')
\7\ (for offers). In contrast, under the Price Adjust process, an order
that, at the time of entry, would lock or cross a Protected Quotation
of another options exchange or the Exchange will be ranked and
displayed by the System at one minimum price variation below the
current NBO (for bids) or to one minimum price variation above the
current NBB (for offers). Thus, the two primary differences between the
display-price sliding process and the Price Adjust process are: (i) The
ranking of an order at a more aggressive price than the price at which
it is displayed (the display-price sliding process) versus ranking and
displaying an order at the same price (the Price Adjust process); and
(ii) sliding of an order that would lock or cross a Protected Quotation
of another options exchange but not an order displayed by the Exchange
(the display-price sliding process) or the sliding of an order that
would lock or cross a Protected Quotation of another options exchange
or the exchange (the Price Adjust process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(59) (defining the term System as
the automated trading system used by EDGX Options for the trading of
options contracts).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(29) (defining the terms ``NBB'',
``NBO'', and ``NBBO'').
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the general similarities between the two price sliding
processes and to simplify the functionality offered by the Exchange,
the Exchange proposes to eliminate the display-price sliding process
for EDGX Options. In order to effect this change the Exchange proposes
to delete Rule 21.1(h) in its entirety and to remove references to
display-price sliding in paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) of Rule 21.1,
paragraph (f) of Rule 21.6 and paragraph (a)(1)(B) of Rule 21.9. The
Exchange also proposes to delete Rule 21.1(j), which describes the
relative handling of orders subject to the display-price sliding
process and the Price Adjust process, as such provision is no longer
necessary with the elimination of the display-price sliding process.
The Exchange also proposes to capitalize the reference to the Price
Adjust process in Rule 21.9(a)(1)(B) to achieve consistency with the
rest of the Exchange's rules.
    In addition to the changes described above, the Exchange proposes
to make the Price Adjust process the default price sliding
functionality. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule
21.1(d)(7), which currently designates the display-price sliding
process as the default, to instead state that the Price Adjust process
is the default, unless otherwise specified by a User.
Elimination of Price Improving Orders
    Price Improving Orders are orders to buy or sell an option at a
specified price at an increment smaller than the minimum price
variation in the security.\8\ Price Improving Orders may be entered in
increments as small as (1) one cent. Price Improving Orders are
displayed at the minimum price variation in the security and shall be
rounded up for sell orders and rounded down for buy orders. Unless a
User \9\ has entered instructions not to do so, Price Improving Orders
are currently subject to the display-price sliding process, as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 21.1(d)(6).
    \9\ The term ``User'' means any Options Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3 (Access). See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Price Improving Orders on EDGX
Options in order to simplify System functionality. To effect this
change, the Exchange proposes to delete paragraph (d)(6) from Rule
21.1(d) in its entirety. The Exchange also proposes to remove a
reference to Price Improving Orders contained in Rule 18.4(f)(2).
Step Up Mechanism
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a rule that governs the operation of
its new Step Up Mechanism (``SUM'' or the ``SUM process''). As
proposed, SUM is a feature within the Exchange's System that would
provide automated order handling in designated classes for qualifying
orders that are not automatically executed by the System. Regarding SUM
eligibility, the Exchange shall designate eligible order size, eligible
order type, eligible order origin code (e.g., Priority Customer Orders,
non-Market Maker non-Priority Customer orders, and Market Maker
orders),\10\ and classes in which SUM shall be activated. SUM shall
automatically process upon receipt of: (i) An eligible order that is
marketable against the Exchange's disseminated quotation while that
quotation is not the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''); or (ii) an
eligible order that would improve the Exchange's disseminated quotation
and that is marketable against quotations disseminated by other
exchanges that are participants in the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(45) (defining ``Priority
Customer'' and ``Priority Customer'') and Exchange Rule 16.1(a)(37)
(defining ``Market Maker'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For order handling and responses regarding SUM, orders that are
received by SUM pursuant to the paragraph above shall be electronically
exposed at the NBBO immediately upon receipt. The exposure shall be for
a period of time determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis,
which period of time shall not exceed one second. All Users will be
permitted to submit responses to the exposure message during the
exposure period. Responses (i) must be limited to the size of the order
being exposed; (ii) may be modified, cancelled and/or replaced any time
during the exposure period; and (iii) will be cancelled back at the end
of the exposure period if unexecuted.
    Regarding the allocation of exposed orders, any responses priced at
the prevailing NBBO or better shall immediately trade against the order
(on a first come, first served basis). If during the exposure period
the Exchange receives an unrelated order (or quote) on the opposite
side of the market from the exposed order that could trade against the
exposed order at the prevailing NBBO price or better, then the orders
will trade at the prevailing NBBO price. The exposure period shall not
terminate if a quantity remains on the exposed order after such trade.
Responses that are not immediately executable based on the prevailing
NBBO may become executable during the exposure period based on changes
to the NBBO. In the event of a change to the NBBO and at the conclusion
of the exposure period, the Exchange will evaluate remaining responses
as well as the disseminated best bid/offer on other exchanges and
execute any remaining portion of the exposed order to the fullest
extent possible at the best price(s) by executing against responses and
unrelated orders (pursuant to the matching algorithm in effect for the
class). Following the exposure period, the Exchange will route the
remaining portion of the exposed order to other exchanges, unless
otherwise instructed by the User. Any portion of a routed order that
returns unfilled shall trade against the Exchange's best bid/offer
unless another exchange is quoting at a better price in which case new
orders shall be generated and routed to trade against such better
prices. All executions on the Exchange pursuant to this paragraph shall
comply with Rule 27.2 (Order Protection).
    Regarding the early termination of the exposure period, in addition
to the receipt of a response (or unrelated order or quote) to trade the
entire exposed order at the NBBO or better, the exposure period will
also terminate early: (i) If during the exposure period the NBBO
updates such that the exposed order is no longer marketable against the
prevailing NBBO; or (ii) if

during the exposure of an order the Exchange is displaying an unrelated
order on the same side of the market as the exposed order and such
displayed order is subsequently locked or crossed by another options
exchange. When the exposure period terminates early, the exposed order
shall be processed in accordance with paragraph (c) of the proposed
Rule (which regards allocation of exposed orders).
    The purpose of the proposed change is to provide all Exchange Users
with the opportunity to improve their prices and ``step up'' to meet
the NBBO in order to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. This
will allow the market participant sending an order to EDGX Options to
increase its chances of receiving an execution at EDGX Options (the
market participant's chosen venue) instead of having the order be
routed to another exchange. This ``step up'' process allows market
participants to take into account factors beyond just disseminated
prices, such as execution costs, system reliability, and quality of
service, when determining the exchange to which to route an order. A
market participant that prefers EDGX Options due to some combination of
these other factors will know that, even if EDGX Options is not
displaying a price that is the NBBO, the market participant may still
receive an execution at EDGX Options because another User may ``step
up'' to match the NBBO. Further, SUM and the ``step up'' process enable
Users to add liquidity that is available to interact with orders sent
to the Exchange. Indeed, when a User on EDGX Options ``steps up'' to
match the NBBO that is displayed on another exchange, more contracts
may be executed at this NBBO price on EDGX Options than are available
at that same price on the other exchange.
    The Exchange's proposed SUM and the ``step up'' process are not
novel concepts. As proposed, SUM is similar to the Hybrid Agency
Liaison (``CBOE HAL'') offered on the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), which provides the same manner of ``step up''
process and has been approved by the Commission.\11\ One difference
between CBOE HAL and the proposed SUM is that CBOE HAL operates on
CBOE's Hybrid Trading System, which combines both open outcry and
electronic trading, whereas the proposed SUM would be entirely
electronic (as EDGX Options is an all-electronic exchange). The
proposed SUM rule does not incorporate CBOE HAL language regarding
Hybrid.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60551 (August 20,
2009), 74 FR 43196 (August 26, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-040) (``HAL
Approval Order'').
    \12\ See CBOE Rule 6.14A. The Exchange notes, however, that C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''), which has adopted a HAL
mechanism as well, is similar to the Exchange in this respect. See
C2 Rule 6.18. Specifically, like the Exchange, C2 does not have open
outcry but is a fully electronic exchange. The Exchange further
notes that C2's version of HAL was adopted with certain distinctions
from the CBOE's approved HAL rule pursuant to an immediately
effective rule filing. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68573
(January 3, 2013), 78 FR 1889 (January 9, 2013) (SR-C2-2012-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another difference is that on CBOE HAL, only Market-Makers with an
appointment in the relevant option class and Trading Permit Holders
acting as agent for orders resting at the top of CBOE's book in the
relevant option series opposite the order submitted to CBOE HAL may
submit responses to the exposure message during the exposure period
(unless CBOE determines, on a class-by-class basis, to allow all
Trading Permit Holders to submit responses to the exposure message).
The Exchange has determined that, on its proposed SUM, all Users may
submit responses to the exposure message during the exposure period.
This difference leads to various differences between the proposed rule
applicable to SUM and the rule applicable to CBOE HAL. Specifically,
pursuant to CBOE HAL, an order will not be exposed if the CBOE
quotation contains resting orders and does not contain sufficient CBOE
Market Maker quotation interest to satisfy the entire order. The
Exchange did not propose this language or limitation because the
proposed SUM process is not dependent only on Market Maker interest in
any way, but rather, seeks to expose the order for execution to all
participants on EDGX Options. Also, Interpretation and Policy .01 to
CBOE Rule 6.14A (the CBOE rule regarding HAL), which prohibits the
redistribution of exposure messages to market participants not eligible
to respond to such messages (except in classes in which CBOE allows all
Trading Permit Holders to respond to such messages) does not apply to
the proposed SUM, as all Users of EDGX Options are permitted to respond
to all exposure messages.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that while different from the CBOE rule,
the proposal is identical to the corresponding C2 rule, Rule 6.18.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also proposed different criteria for early
termination of an exposure period than those reasons set forth in the
corresponding CBOE rule regarding HAL. Although an exposure period will
terminate early if an order is executed in full, the Exchange moved
this provision to a separate section of the proposed rule. CBOE also
terminates an exposure period in slightly different circumstances than
the Exchange has proposed, including when a same side order is received
by CBOE, if CBOE Market Maker interest decrements to an amount equal to
the size of the exposed order and if the underlying security enters a
limit up limit down state. While the Exchange does not believe early
termination is necessary for SUM under any of these reasons, the
Exchange has proposed to terminate an exposure period early in two
other scenarios not covered by HAL, specifically when the exposed order
is no longer marketable against the NBBO or if a resting order on the
Exchange is locked or crossed by another options exchange. Although the
early termination section of the proposed rule represents the greatest
departure from the HAL rule, the Exchange does not believe that any of
these differences raise new policy issues generally with respect to a
step up process.
    With respect to the early termination scenarios not adopted by the
Exchange, the Exchange believes that the fact that a User will have the
ability to cancel its order after the SUM process is initiated coupled
with the fact that the Exchange will only execute an order that has
been exposed via the SUM process to the extent the order is marketable
against the NBBO mitigate any potential concern regarding such
differences. Further, regarding the additional early termination
scenarios specified by the Exchange, the Exchange believes that these
are reasonable reasons to terminate the SUM process. Specifically, if
an order is no longer marketable, then it cannot be executed through
the SUM process so no longer benefits from being exposed. If an order
resting on the Exchange is locked or crossed by another options
exchange then the Exchange believes that continuing to expose the order
could present difficulties with respect to the handling of the resting
order and, particularly with respect to a crossing quotation published
by another options exchange, that the exposed order, if routable,
should be routed to such options exchange for potential price
improvement.
    In addition to the differences described above, the Exchange has
used terminology throughout proposed Rule 21.18 that differs from
terminology used in the corresponding CBOE rule regarding HAL in order
to retain consistency with other Exchange rules or because the
Exchange's System does not operate the same as CBOE (i.e., with respect
to market turner and price

checks).\14\ Further, the Exchange has made various wording and
structural changes that the Exchange believes improve the general
understandability of the SUM process. The Exchange also included a few
additional details not included in the CBOE HAL rule, such as making
clear that responses are cancelled at the end of the exposure period if
unexecuted, stating that responses may become executable based on
changes to the NBBO, and stating that an order will not be exposed when
the NBBO is crossed. The Exchange does not believe the terminology used
or different wording or structure represents any substantive difference
between the proposed SUM process and HAL, but rather, that these are
minor improvements to the language of the rule to highlight the exact
operation of the proposed SUM process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange did not include language included in the
corresponding rule for CBOE HAL related to a price check parameters,
as the Exchange does not have the same price check process as CBOE.
That said, all orders exposed via SUM will be subject to the same
price checks as all other orders on EDGX Options, including but not
limited to, collars applicable to market orders and executions only
within the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the differences highlighted above, the proposed SUM process
would otherwise operate in similar manner to the CBOE HAL, which has
been approved by the Commission. The Commission has always been clear
that honoring better prices on other markets can be accomplished by
matching those better prices.\15\ The proposed SUM's ``step up''
process would allow participants on EDGX Options to do just that. If an
EDGX Options User wants to ensure that an order does not go through the
proposed SUM process, then that User can submit an order that would not
be exposed to SUM.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, in adopting the Order Protection Rule (Rule
611) under Regulation NMS in 2005, the Commission stated: ``The
Order Protection Rule generally requires that trading centers match
the best quoted prices, cancel orders without an execution, or route
orders to the trading centers quoting the best prices.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR
37496 (June 29, 2005), at 37525 (S7-10-04).
    \16\ A User will be able to opt-out of SUM by including a
specific field in their orders submitted to the Exchange. As noted
below, unless otherwise specified, all routable orders will be
subject to SUM. Details regarding the ability to opt-out of SUM will
be set forth in the Exchange's order entry specifications, which are
made publicly available to all Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Rule 21.18 as described above, the Exchange also
proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .01 to new Rule 21.18,
which will state that all determinations by the Exchange pursuant to
Rule 21.18 (i.e., eligible order size, order type, increment, order
origin codes and classes) will be announced in a circular to Members
and maintained in specifications made publicly available via the
Exchange's Web site. The Exchange also proposes to adopt Interpretation
and Policy .02 to new Rule 21.18 to make clear that the Exchange will
not initiate the SUM process if the NBBO is crossed.
    The Exchange also proposes to add references to the proposed SUM
process to paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 21.6 and paragraph (a)(1) of Rule
21.9, in both cases to provide a complete list of potential ways an
order may be handled by the Exchange. As proposed, Rule 21.9(a)(1)
would also make clear that the SUM process is the default order
handling process for any routable order.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (b)(4) under Rule
21.15 to refer to a new data feed that would be offered by the Exchange
in connection with auctions on EDGX Options, including the SUM process.
Specifically, the Rule would state that that Auction Feed is an
uncompressed data product that provides information regarding the
current status of price and size information related to auctions
conducted by the Exchange. The Exchange intends to provide data
regarding the SUM process to Users via its Multicast PITCH Feed, the
main depth of book product offered by the Exchange, but believes that
having a separate Auction Feed for Users that wish to receive such
information separately is appropriate. The Exchange notes that the
proposed language for the Auction Feed is directly based on Rule
11.22(i) of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), which describes the BZX
equities auction feed applicable to securities listed on BZX. In
addition to referencing the Auction Feed in Rule 21.15(b), the Exchange
proposes to modify current Rule 21.15(c) to make clear that information
regarding Priority Customer Orders and trades will be included in the
Auction Feed, just as such information is included on the Exchange's
Multicast PITCH Feed today. The Exchange also notes that while SUM is
not an auction process, per se, the Exchange believes that the options
industry has often grouped step up processes with other auction
processes when describing product offerings. Thus, the Exchange does
not believe that including SUM information in the Auction Feed will
cause any confusion. Further, the Exchange expects to propose
additional (more traditional) auction processes over time and intends
to include information regarding activity in such auctions in the
Auction Feed. The Exchange notes that until additional auctions are
proposed and implemented by EDGX Options, information regarding the SUM
process would be the only data in the Auction Feed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \18\ because
it is designed to simplify System functionality and to adopt the SUM
process, which is designed to offer market participants greater
flexibility with respect to orders entered into the EDGX Options Book,
thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, removing impediments to, and perfecting the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elimination of the Display-Price Sliding Process and Price Improving
Orders
    The proposed change to eliminate display-price sliding under Rule
21.1(g) (as well as references to such process elsewhere in Exchange
rules) promotes just and equitable principles of trade and fosters
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities. Similarly, the proposed change to eliminate
Price Improving Orders under Rule 21.1(d)(6) (as well as references to
such orders elsewhere in Exchange rules) promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and fosters cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities.
Specifically, both of the proposed changes are designed to simplify
functionality on EDGX Options, particularly as the Exchange begins to
adopt new processes such as the SUM process, proposed herein.
Step Up Mechanism
    Adopting SUM, a ``step up'' program, would provide eligible Users
on EDGX Options with the opportunity to improve their prices to match
the NBBO in order to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. This
will allow the market participant sending an order to EDGX Options to
increase its chances of receiving an execution at EDGX Options (the
market participant's chosen venue) instead of having the order be
routed to another exchange. This ``step up''

process allows market participants to take into account factors beyond
just disseminated prices, such as execution costs, system reliability,
and quality of service, when determining the exchange to which to route
an order. A market participant that prefers EDGX Options due to some
combination of these other factors will know that, even if EDGX Options
is not displaying a price that is the NBBO, the market participant may
still receive an execution at EDGX Options because another User may
``step up'' to match the NBBO. Therefore, the fact that SUM allows a
market participant who elects to send an order to EDGX Options to have
a greater likelihood of achieving execution at this chosen venue
without the risk of paying a lower price removes an impediment to and
perfects the mechanism for a free and open national market system.
Further, SUM and the ``step up'' process enable Users to add liquidity
that is available to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. Indeed,
when a User ``steps up'' to match the NBBO that is displayed on another
exchange, more contracts may be executed at this NBBO price on EDGX
Options than are available at that same price on the other exchange.
This increased liquidity benefits all market participants on EDGX
Options, thereby perfecting the mechanism for a free and open national
market system and protecting investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange's proposed SUM process is similar to CBOE HAL, which
provides the same manner of ``step up'' process. The differences
between CBOE HAL and the proposed SUM process are described elsewhere
in the proposal and the Exchange believes each relates either to the
language used to describe each respective process or to the specific
way that the Exchange's System operates generally or specifically with
respect to SUM as compared to CBOE's implementation of HAL. The
Exchange does not believe that any of these differences raise any new
or significant policy concerns. Further, despite these differences, the
proposed SUM process would otherwise operate in a similar manner to the
CBOE HAL, which has been approved by the Commission.\19\ As such, the
Exchange merely desires to adopt a mechanism that is similar to one
that already exists on CBOE and other exchanges. Permitting the
Exchange to operate on an even playing field relative to other
exchanges removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism for a free
and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See HAL Approval Order, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has always been clear that honoring better prices on
other markets can be accomplished by matching those better prices.\20\
The proposed SUM's ``step up'' process would allow participants on EDGX
Options to do just that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra, note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. To the contrary, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule changes regarding display
price sliding and Price Improving Orders impact competition, but
rather, that the changes will help to reduce the complexity of the
operation of EDGX Options.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to
adopt the SUM process will impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange's proposed SUM is open to all market participants. The ``step-
up'' feature of the proposed SUM allows for execution at the NBBO or
price improvement. When such price improvement is achieved via this
``stepping up'' to meet (or beat) the best quoted price at another
exchange, market participants are able to receive the best quoted price
while still achieving execution on EDGX Options, the exchange to which
they elected to send their orders. As noted above, the SUM process is
similar to processes offered by at least one other options exchange
that competes with the Exchange, and therefore the proposal is a pro-
competitive proposal.
    For all the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act,
and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written
comments from members or other interested parties.

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

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

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \23\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \24\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the
Exchange to immediately provide functionality on EDGX Options that is
similar to functionality provided by other options exchanges, including
but not limited to, CBOE and C2. The Commission believes the waiver of
the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-29 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-29. 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 No. SR-BatsEDGX-2016-29, and should be
submitted on or before August 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17194 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52625-52627]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0094]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the waters of
the Schuylkill River around the Deloach dock near Point Breeze at
Philadelphia Energy Solutions. The safety zone is necessary when a
barge with a beam (width) up to 80 feet moors at the Philadelphia
Energy Solutions' Deloach dock, reducing the horizontal clearance of
the channel by as much as 30 feet when a barge is moored at the
facility. This rule will allow the Coast Guard to restrict all vessel
traffic through the safety zone when a barge having a beam of up to 80
feet is scheduled to moor at the facility.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0874. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email If you have questions on this final rule, call or email
Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay,
Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-
4851, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On June 24, 2014 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, ``Safety Zone,
Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA'' in the Federal Register (79 FR
35685). No comments were received on the NPRM. No public meeting was
requested and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of waterway
users from hazards associated with a 30 foot reduction of horizontal
clearance in the channel near Point Breeze when a barge with a beam
(width) up to 80 feet is moored at the Deloach dock of Philadelphia
Energy Solutions in the Schuylkill River. The remaining horizontal
width of the channel in vicinity of Point Breeze is 270 feet.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule.
Changes were made to the size of the safety zone described in the
notice to proposed rule making. The decision was made to reduce the
size of the zone to minimize the effect on waterway users in the area.
    The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Schuylkill
River in Philadelphia, PA, inside a boundary described as originating
from 39[deg]54'50'' N., 075[deg]12'12'' W.; then West to 39[deg]54'50''
N., 075[deg]12'15'' W.; then Northeast to 39[deg]55'10'' N.,
075[deg]12'05'' W.; the East to 39[deg]55'10'' N., 075[deg]12'04'' W.;
then back to 39[deg]54'50'' N., 075[deg]12'12'' W.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action because it merely reduces the horizontal
width of the channel; vessel traffic can still proceed up and down the
Schuylkill River.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
navigable channel is 300 feet wide, providing a remaining 270 feet of
horizontal channel clearance for the passage of vessel traffic in the
Schuylkill River. Additionally, the only commercial vessel traffic
utilizing the waterway upriver of the Passyunk Avenue Bridge is an
occasional barge. All anticipated vessel traffic will be able to pass
safely around an 80 foot wide barge moored at the Deloach dock at
Philadelphia Energy Solutions near Point Breeze. Before the safety zone
goes into effect, maritime advisories will be made widely available to
users of the Schuylkill River navigable channel.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and this rule would have a
significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the
Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism. The Coast
Guard did not receive any comments relating to federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule does not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of a
safety zone when a barge having beam (width) of up to 80 feet is moored
at the Deloach dock at Philadelphia Energy Solutions near Point Breeze
on the Schuylkill River. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.784 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.784  Safety Zone, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA, inside a boundary described
as originating from 39[deg]54'50'' N., 075[deg]12'12'' W.; then West to
39[deg]54'50'' N., 075[deg]12'15'' W.; then Northeast to 39[deg]55'10''
N., 075[deg]12'05'' W.; the East to 39[deg]55'10'' N., 075[deg]12'04''
W.; then back to 39[deg]54'50'' N., 075[deg]12'12'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. (1) This regulation is enforced during
times when a barge having a beam (width) of up to 80 feet is moored at
the Deloach dock of Philadelphia Energy Solutions near Point Breeze.
    (2) Prior to commencing enforcement of this regulation, the COTP or
designated on-scene patrol personnel will notify the public whenever
the regulation is being enforced, to include dates and times. The means
of notification may include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information
Bulletins, or other appropriate means.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23.
    (2) All persons and vessels transiting through the Safety Zone must
be authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative.
    (3) All persons or vessels wishing to transit through the Safety
Zone must request authorization to do so from the Captain of the Port
or his representative 30 minutes prior to the intended time of transit.
    (4) Vessels granted permission to transit must do so in accordance
with the directions provided by the Captain of the Port or his
representative to the vessel.
    (5) To seek permission to transit the Safety Zone, the Captain of
the Port or his representative can be contacted via Sector Delaware Bay
Command Center<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through
the Safety Zone except vessels that are engaged in the following
operations:
    (i) Enforcing laws;
    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and
    (iii) Emergency response vessels.
    (7) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone
without the permission of the Captain of the Port;
    (8) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any
direction or order of the Captain of the Port;
    (9) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on
board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port; and
    (10) No person may take or place any article or thing upon any
waterfront facility in a safety zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port.
    (d) Definitions. The Captain of the Port means the Commander of
Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on
his behalf.
    (e) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the Safety Zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.

    Dated: July 31, 2015.
B.A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2015-21687 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P