[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35842-35846]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12647]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95060; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 7, 2022.
    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 June 1, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/) [sic], at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equity'') to modify certain tiers
offered under the Add/Remove Volume Tiers, including certain Add Volume
Tiers, a Growth Tier, and a Remove Volume Tier. The Exchange proposes
to implement these changes effective June 1, 2022.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\3\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays rebates to members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove liquidity. For orders
in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00009 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of 0.30% of the total dollar value for orders that remove
liquidity. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides Members
opportunities to qualify for higher

rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds
are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members
to strive for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher
benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (May 30, 2022), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifications To Add Volume Tiers
    Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers
various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers
four Add Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members'
qualifying orders yielding fee codes B \4\, V \5\, Y \6\, 3 \7\ or 4
\8\, where a Member reaches certain add volume-based criteria.
Specifically, the Add Volume Tiers are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``B'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape B).
    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``V'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape A).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``Y'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX (Tape C).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``3'' are orders adding liquidity
to EXGX in the pre and post market (Tapes A or C).
    \8\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``4'' are orders adding liquidity
to EDGX in the pre and post market (Tape B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 1 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.0020 per share for
qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a
Member adds an ADV \9\ greater than or equal to 0.20% of the TCV.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day.
    \10\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tier 2 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.0023 per share for
qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a
Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.30% of the TCV.
     Tier 3 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share for
qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a
Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV.
     Tier 4 offers an enhanced rebate of $0.0029 per share for
qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a
Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 0.65% of the TCV.
    The Exchange now proposes to modify Tier 2, remove existing Tier 3,
and, consequently, renumber Tier 4. Specifically, as proposed, the
Tiers would provide for the following:
     Proposed Tier 2 would offer an enhanced rebate of $0.0027
per share (instead of $0.0023 per share) for qualifying orders (i.e.,
yielding fee codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a Member adds an ADV greater
than or equal to 0.28% of the TCV (instead of 0.30% of the TCV) or
Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to 30,000,000 (not a criteria
in current Tier 2).
     Proposed Tier 3 (current Tier 4) would offer an enhanced
rebate of $0.0029 per share for qualifying orders (i.e., yielding fee
codes B, V, Y, 3 or 4) where a Member adds an ADV greater than or equal
to 0.65% of the TCV.
    Although the Exchange proposes to eliminate the current Tier 3,
thus limiting the amount of available Add Volume Tiers and
corresponding rebates available to Members, the Exchange proposes to
increase the rebate in Tier 2, slightly ease the percentage of ADV over
TCV, and provide an additional prong of criteria for Members to qualify
for the enhanced rebate under proposed Tier 2, which serves to
incentivize market participants to provide additional displayed
liquidity on the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more
liquid market, which benefits all market participants and provides
greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange does not
propose any changes to the current Add Volume Tier 1.
Modification to Growth Volume Tier 4
    In addition to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers under footnote 1 of the
Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers four Growth Tiers that each provide
an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes B,
V, Y, 3 or 4, where a Member reaches certain add volume-based criteria,
including ``growing'' its volume over a certain baseline month.
Currently, Growth Tier 4 provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0034 per
share to MPIDs that (1) add a Step-Up ADAV from October 2021 equal to
or greater than 0.10% of the TCV \11\ or MPIDs that add a Step-Up ADAV
from October 2021 equal to or greater than 16 million shares; and (2)
MPIDs that add an ADV \12\ equal to or greater than 0.30% of TCV or
MPIDs that add an ADV equal to or greater than 30 million shares. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the criteria in prong 2 of Growth Tier 4
by increasing the second add ADV criteria from greater than or equal to
30 million shares to 35 million shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \12\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the purpose of the Growth Volume Tiers is
to encourage MPIDs to grow their volume on the Exchange as compared to
a baseline month. By increasing one of the add ADV criteria in the
second prong of Growth Volume Tier 4 while keeping the enhanced rebate
the same, the proposed rule change slightly increases the current
criteria's difficulty, which is intended to encourage liquidity adding
MPIDs on the Exchange to strive to reach Growth Tier 4 by increasing
the provision of liquidity to the Exchange, which increases execution
opportunities and provides for overall enhanced price discovery and
price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. Increased overall
order flow benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and
well-balanced market ecosystem.
Modification To Remove Volume Tier
    The Exchange also offers two Remove Volume Tiers under the Add/
Remove Volume Tiers in footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule. The Remove
Volume Tiers each assess a reduced fee for Members' qualifying orders
yielding fee codes BB \13\, N \14\ and W \15\ where a Member reaches
certain add volume-based criteria. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to amend Remove Volume Tier 1, which currently offers a reduced fee of
$0.00275 per share in securities priced above $1.00 and 0.28% of the
total dollar value in securities priced below $1.00 for qualifying
orders (i.e., yielding fee codes BB, N or W) where (1) Member adds a
Step-Up ADAV \16\ from June 2021 greater than or equal to 0.10% of the
TCV or Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from June 2021 greater than or equal
to 8,000,000; and (2) Member has a total remove ADV greater than or
equal to 0.60% of the TCV or Member has a total remove ADV greater than
or equal to 60,000,000. The Exchange proposes to amend the criteria in
the second prong of Remove Volume Tier 1 by decreasing the second ADV
remove criteria from a total remove ADV of greater than or equal to
60,000,000 to a total remove ADV of greater than or equal to
45,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Orders yielding fee code ``BB'' are orders removing
liquidity from EDGX (Tape B).
    \14\ Orders yielding fee code ``N'' are orders removing
liquidity from EDGX (Tape C).
    \15\ Orders yielding fee code ``W'' are orders removing
liquidity from EDGX (Tape A).
    \16\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV. ``ADAV'' means average daily volume
calculated as the number of shares added per day. ADAV is calculated
on a monthly basis.

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

    The proposed amendment to Remove Volume Tier 1 would lessen the
difficulty of the existing criteria while keeping the reduced fee the
same. The Exchange believes lowering the total remove ADV criteria in
the second prong of Remove Volume Tier 1 without changing the reduced
fee available to Members will encourage Members to strive to meet the
criteria by removing liquidity on the Exchange to receive the same
reduced fee. An increase in remove liquidity on the Exchange signals an
overall increase in activity from other market participants,
contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides additional
execution opportunities for active market participants, which benefits
the entire market system. The Exchange does not propose any changes to
current Remove Volume Tier 2.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the objectives of Section 6 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933
(the ``Act''),\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4),\18\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its Members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \19\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and, particularly, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described above,
the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to
be insufficient. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would
enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to certain Add/
Remove Volume Tiers, specifically, Add Volume Tiers 2 and 3, Remove
Volume Tier 1, and Growth Tier 4, are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because each tier, as modified, continues to be
available to all Members and provide Members an opportunity to receive
an enhanced rebate or a reduced fee. As noted above, the Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of 16
equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow,
and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. It is also
only one of several maker-taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges
offer similar rates and tiered pricing structures to that of the
Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon
members achieving certain volume thresholds. Specifically, the Exchange
notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been
widely adopted by exchanges,\20\ including the Exchange,\21\ and are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or
discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's
market quality and (ii) associated higher levels of market activity,
such as higher levels or liquidity provision and/or growth thresholds,
as well as assess similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders,
to that of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
    \21\ See EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove
Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes to
certain Add/Remove Volume Tiers are reasonable because the tiers will
continue to provide Members with an opportunity to receive an enhanced
rebate or reduced fee by encouraging Members to increase their order
flow to the Exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes that the
changes to the Add Volume Tiers will provide reasonable means for
Members to receive an enhanced rebate for adding liquidity on the
Exchange. While the Exchange has proposed to remove the existing Tier
3, it believes that by proposing to lower the percentage of ADV over
TCV in Tier 2 and proposing to add an additional ADV criteria to Tier
2, Members will continue to be incentivized to provide liquidity adding
volume to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
enhanced rebate for Add Volume Tier 2 continues to be commensurate with
the proposed criteria. That is, the rebate reasonably reflects the
difficulty in achieving the applicable criteria as amended.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed increase to one of
the ADV criteria in Growth Tier 4 is reasonable because the proposal
represents a modest increase in volume as compared to the previous
criteria. The Growth Tiers incentivize Members to grow their add volume
as compared to a baseline month in order to receive an enhanced rebate
and the proposed increase in add ADV represents a reasonable incentive
for MPIDs to increase their liquidity adding order flow in order to
receive an enhanced rebate that reasonably reflects the difficulty in
achieving the criteria. Additionally, the Exchange believes the
proposed lower one of the remove ADV criteria in Remove Volume Tier 1
is reasonable because it will encourage Members to increase their
remove volume on the Exchange, as the proposed change will make it
easier for Members to receive a reduced fee for removing liquidity on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Add/
Remove Volume Tiers are reasonably designed overall to incentivize
Members to continue to add and remove liquidity on the Exchange, thus
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering additional cost
savings to Members, supporting the quality of price discovery,
promoting market transparency, and improving market quality for all
investors.
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the various Add/
Remove Volume Tiers represent an equitable allocation of rebates and
fees and are not unfairly discriminatory because all Members are
eligible for those tiers and would have the opportunity to meet a
tier's criteria and would receive the proposed enhanced rebate or
reduced fee if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity
on other market and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of
knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in
any Members qualifying for the proposed tiers. While the Exchange has
no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed tiers will impact
Member activity, the Exchange anticipates that at least one Member will
be able to satisfy the criteria proposed for Add Volume Tier 2, Remove
Volume Tier 1, and Growth Tier 4. The Exchange also notes that the
proposed changes will not adversely

impact any Member's ability to qualify for other reduced fee or
enhanced rebated tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed criteria
under the modified tier, the Member will merely not receive that
corresponding enhanced rebate or reduced fee. The Exchange also
believes the proposal to eliminate a tier is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies to all Members, in that, such tier
will not be available for any Member. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers will benefit all market
participants by incentivizing continuous liquidity and, thus, deeper
more liquid markets as well as increased execution opportunities.
Particularly, the proposals are designed to incentivize liquidity,
which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provide
even more execution opportunities for active market participants at
improved prices. This overall increase in activity deepens the
Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, supports the
quality of price discovery, promotes market transparency and improves
market quality, for all investors.

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. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution
opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
tier changes will apply to all Members equally in that all Members will
continue to be eligible for Add Tier 2, Remove Volume Tier 1 and Growth
Tier 4, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and
will receive the enhanced rebate or reduced fee on their qualifying
orders if such criteria are met. Also, as stated above, the proposal to
eliminate a tier applies to all Members, in that, such tier will not be
available for any Member. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
changes burden competition, but rather, enhance competition as they are
intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX by amending existing
pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize
participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing
for additional execution opportunities for market participants and
improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading
opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all market participants
on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage
Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-
balanced market ecosystem.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 17% of the market share.\22\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \23\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.'. . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers' . . .''.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Supra note 3.
    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \24\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-029. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-029, and
should be submitted on or before July 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12647 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31301-31302]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-164-000.
    Applicants: Blythe Mesa Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Blythe Mesa Solar II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/2/21.
    Accession Number: 20210602-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2474-023; ER10-2475-023; ER10-2605-015; ER10-
2611-023; ER10-2984-051; ER10-3246-017; ER11-2044-037; ER11-3876-026;
ER12-162-031; ER12-1626-012; ER13-1266-034; ER13-1267-011; ER13-1268-
011; ER13-1269-011; ER13-1270-011; ER13-1271-011; ER13-1272-011; ER13-
1273-011;

ER13-1441-011; ER13-1442-011; ER13-520-011; ER13-521-011; ER15-2211-
031; ER16-1258-004; ER16-438-006; ER18-1419-004.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company, Nevada Power Company,
Yuma Cogeneration Associates, Saranac Power Partners, L.P., Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc., PacifiCorp, MidAmerican Energy Company,
Cordova Energy Company LLC, Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, Topaz Solar
Farms LLC, Pinyon Pines Wind I, LLC, Pinyon Pines Wind II, LLC,
CalEnergy, LLC, CE Leathers Company, Del Ranch Company, Elmore Company,
Fish Lake Power LLC, Salton Sea Power Generation Company, Salton Sea
Power L.L.C., Vulcan/BN Geothermal Power Company, Solar Star California
XIX, LLC, Solar Star California XX, LLC, MidAmerican Energy Services,
LLC, Marshall Wind Energy LLC, Grande Prairie Wind, LLC, Walnut Ridge
Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Sierra
Pacific Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/3/21.
    Accession Number: 20210603-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2738-009; ER11-4267-014; ER20-2586-002 ER20-
2587-001; ER20-2669-001.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company, North Fork Ridge
Wind, LLC, Kings Point Wind, LLC, Neosho Ridge Wind, LLC, Algonquin
Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of The Empire
District Electric Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210604-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2065-001; ER20-2066 001.
    Applicants: Antelope Expansion 3A, LLC, Antelope Expansion 3B, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Antelope
Expansion 3A, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-383-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-06-07_SA 3581 Deficiency
Response to ATC-Muscoda Substitute CFA to be effective 6/4/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-625-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance notice of delayed
effective date--SENY reserve enhancements to be effective 6/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2085-000
    Applicants: Crawford Solar LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Crawford Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/4/21.
    Accession Number: 20210604-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2086-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, SA No. 6068;
Queue No. P36 to be effective 5/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2087-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: The Empire District Electric
Company Formula Rate to be effective 5/14/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2088-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Photosol US Renewable Energy
(Bayou Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 5/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2089-000.
    Applicants: Elephant Energy, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial Market Based Rate
Tariff Filing--Elephant Energy to be effective 6/7/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2090-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 894 to
be effective 2/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210607-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    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 comment date. 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: June 7, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12296 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA/ OECA, Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Div. 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060  0004 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS Subpart RR  Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations  Information Request 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 0658.07 9. Keywords Air Pollution Control, Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection.

10. Abstract Owners / operators of pressure sensitive tape and label surface coating operations must notify EPA of construction, modification, start ups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and dates and results of performance tests. Owners/ operators shall submit quarterly reports of exceedences of VOC emission limits and semiannual reports. Records shall be kept of coatings used and solvents re captured or destroyed.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 410 b. Total annual responses 1,025 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 5 % c. Total annual hours requested 39,104 d. Current OMB inventory 36,302 e. Difference + 2,802 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment + 2,802 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 240 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 1,640 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 1,880 d. Current OMB inventory $ 1,560 e. Difference +$ 320 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment + $ 320 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Q Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact: Name: Seth Heminway Phone: ( 202) 564 7017 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

© It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official John B. Rasnic, Director, Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Information ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64179-64181]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0313]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Vito Floating Production System, Outer Continental
Shelf Facility, Mississippi Canyon Block 939, Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone around
the Vito Floating Production System (FPS), located in Mississippi
Canyon Block 939 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of
Mexico. Establishing a safety zone around the facility would
significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security
breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the
safety of life, property, and the environment. Only vessels measuring
less than 100 feet in length overall and not engaged in towing,
attending vessels, or those vessels specifically authorized by the
Eighth Coast Guard District Commander or a designated representative
are permitted to enter or remain in the safety zone. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0313 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR David Newcomb, District Eight
OCS, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FPS Floating Production System
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Under the authority provided in 14 U.S.C. 544, 43 U.S.C. 1333, and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, 33 CFR part 147
permits the establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the
OCS for the purpose of protecting life and property on the facilities.
The protections included in a safety zone established under 33 CFR part
147 are promoting safety of life and property on the facilities as well
as their appurtenances and attending vessels and also for the adjacent
waters located in and around each facility. Therefore, a safety zone
under 33 CFR part 147 may also include provisions to restrict, prevent,
or control certain activities, including access by vessels or persons
to maintain safety of life, property and the environment. Shell
Exploration and Production Company requested that the Coast Guard
establish a safety zone around its facility located in the deepwater
area of the Gulf of Mexico on the OCS. The Coast Guard determined that
establishing a safety zone around this facility would significantly
reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural
gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the
environment.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The safety zone proposed by this rulemaking is on the OCS in the
deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi Canyon Block 939 at
the center point of N 28[deg]01'32.325'', W 89[deg]12'33.254''. The
safety zone would be permanent. For the purpose of safety zones
established under 33 CFR part 147, the deepwater area is considered to
be waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to
the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the
territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to
200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea
is measured. Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone consists of
large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs
with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area
also includes an extensive system of fairways.
    Only vessels measuring less than 100 feet in length overall and not
engaged in towing, attending vessels as defined in 33 CFR 147.20, or
those vessels specifically authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander or a designated representative are permitted to
enter or remain in the safety zone. The transit of other vessels into
and through the safety zone area would be prohibited. Requests for
entry will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. These
proposed regulations are consistent with the existing safety zones on
other OCS platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Persons or vessels that
require authorization to enter the safety zone must request it from the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the Commander or a designated representative.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    Aligning with 33 CFR 147.15, the safety zone established will
extend to a maximum distance of 500 meters around the OCS facility
measured from each point on its outer edge, but may not interfere with
the use of recognized sea lanes essential to navigation. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit

around the proposed safety zone, which would impact a small designated
area in the Gulf of Mexico, without significant impediment to their
voyage. This safety zone would reduce the risk of allision with the
platform and help protect the environment from potential oil spills, in
accordance with Coast Guard maritime safety missions.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in Mississippi Canyon 939, some of which might be
small entities.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel
traffic would be able to pass safely around the safety zone using an
alternate route. Use of an alternate route may cause minimal delay in
reaching a final destination, depending on other traffic in the area
and vessel speed. Vessels would be able to request deviation from this
rule to transit through the safety zone. Such requests would be
considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
Therefore, the Coast Guard expects any impact of this rulemaking
establishing a safety zone around an OCS facilities to be minimal, with
no significant economic impact on small entities.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that 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.
    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 proposed 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 call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Further, this proposed 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or for
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone around an OCS facility to protect life,
property, and the marine environment. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2021-0476 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed

rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in
the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related
Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be
placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions
on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-
topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 544; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  147.879 to read as follows:

Sec.  147.879  Safety Zone; Vito Floating Production System, Outer
Continental Shelf Facility, Mississippi Canyon Block 939, Gulf of
Mexico.

    (a) Description. The following is a permantent safety zone: the
area within 500 meters of the Vito Floating Production System in the
deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Mississippi Canyon Block 939 is
a safety zone. The Vito FPS is located at:

Latitude N 28[deg]01'32.325''
Longitude 89[deg]12'33.254''

    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except for the following:
    (1) An attending vessel as defined in 147.20;
    (2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing; or
    (3) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District or a designated representative.
    (c) Requests for Permission. Persons or vessels requiring
authorization to enter the safety zone must request permission from the
Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.
If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the
instructions of the Commander or designated representative.

    Dated: October 18, 2022.
Richard Timme,
RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2022-23065 Filed 10-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72727-72731]
[DOCID:fr01de08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8747-1]
RIN 2060-AM71

Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to amend the national
emission standards for electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking
facilities that are area sources of hazardous air pollutants published
on December 28, 2007. The amendments to the area source standards for
EAF steelmaking facilities clarify applicability of the opacity limit,
make the performance test requirements for particulate matter
consistent with requirements in the new source performance standards
for EAF steelmaking facilities, allow title V test data to be used to
demonstrate compliance, and revise the definition of ``scrap provider''
to include EAF steelmaking facilities that own and operate a scrap
shredder.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2009 without further
notice, unless EPA receives significant adverse comment by December 31,
2008. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published
in the Federal Register. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that some or all of the amendments in this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0083 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0083. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
IV. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
V. What are the changes to the area source NESHAP for EAF
steelmaking facilities?
    A. Melt Shop Opacity Limit
    B. Particulate Matter Performance Test Requirements
    C. Certifying Initial Compliance Based on Previous Tests
    D. Definition of ``Scrap Provider''
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this final rule without a prior proposed rule
because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no
significant adverse comment. These amendments to the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) EAF steelmaking
facilities that are area sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart

YYYYY) consist of technical corrections and clarifications that do not
make material changes to the rule's requirements. However, in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing
a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the
area source standards if EPA receives significant adverse comments on
this final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information about commenting on the rule, see the ADDRESSES
section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the amendments or certain amendments in this final rule
will not take effect. We would address all comments in any subsequent
final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the
final rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................  331111.........  Steel mills with
                                                   electric arc furnace
                                                   steelmaking
                                                   facilities that are
                                                   area sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.10680 of
subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities). If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of
subpart A (General Provisions).

III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

IV. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

V. What are the changes to the area source NESHAP for EAF steelmaking
facilities?

    On December 28, 2007 (72 FR 74088), we issued the NESHAP for Area
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYYY). The final rule establishes air emission control
requirements for new and existing facilities that are area sources of
hazardous air pollutants. The final standards include emission limits
for particulate matter (PM)(a surrogate for specific metal hazardous
air pollutants) reflecting performance of generally available control
technology (GACT), and pollution prevention standards for the control
of mercury emissions reflecting performance of the maximum achievable
control technology.

A. Melt Shop Opacity Limit

    This final rule makes a technical clarification to the melt house
opacity limit in paragraph (b)(2) of 40 CFR 63.10686 (What are the
requirements for electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization
vessels?). The promulgated rule prohibits the discharge from an EAF or
argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel of any gases which ``exit
from a melt shop and, due solely (emphasis added) to the operations of
any affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or
greater.'' This final rule amends that language by removing the word
``solely'' from the text of the emissions limit. We are making this
change because, in a few cases, fugitive emissions from other sources
may be unavoidably commingled with the emissions from EAF(s) and AOD
vessel(s). In those cases, the only practical way to determine
compliance with the opacity limit is to observe the opacity of the
combined emissions. On the other hand, if intermittent emissions from
another source occasionally commingle with the fugitive emissions from
the affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s) (such as emissions from point or
fugitive sources that operate intermittently), the opacity
determination must be made when the other sources are not interfering
with the observations. The owner or operator has an incentive to make
opacity observations when the emissions are not commingled because the
additional emissions would result in higher opacity readings.
    We are making a similar change to paragraph (d)(2) of 40 CFR
63.10686 (What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?), which establishes requirements
for demonstrating initial compliance by means of an opacity performance
test. In the promulgated rule, the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2)
specifies the test methods to be used and the second sentence pertains
to combined emissions from sources not subject to subpart YYYYY. The
second sentence of paragraph (d)(2) states that ``When emissions from
any EAF or AOD vessel are combined with emissions from emission sources
not subject to this subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the
melt shop opacity limit based only (emphasis added) on emissions from
the emission sources subject to this subpart.'' This final rule removes
the word ``only'' from the second sentence. We are making this
correction for the same reasons just

discussed for removing the word ``solely.''

B. Particulate Matter Performance Test Requirements

    Paragraph (d) of 40 CFR 63.10686 (What are the requirements for
electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?)
establishes requirements for demonstrating initial compliance by means
of a PM performance test. Paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this section specifies
the test method to be used, the number of test runs that comprise a
test, and the sampling time for each test run. The promulgated rule
requires the facility to sample EAFs only when metal is being melted
and refined and to sample AOD vessels only when the operation(s) are
being conducted. This final rule changes the EAF requirements to
require either that: (1) The sampling time and volume for each run meet
the requirement in 40 CFR 60.275a (the new source performance standard
(NSPS)), or (2) each run consist of at least one heat cycle (i.e., a
test run must include charging, melting and tapping operations). This
change reflects EPA's actual intent in promulgating the December 2007
rule. Our intent there was to be consistent with the NSPS for EAFs and
to require that sampling be performed over the entire heat cycle, not
just during melting. See 72 FR 53826 where we explained that the NSPS
PM limit was GACT, so that one could reasonably infer that the emission
limit would be implemented as required in the NSPS. If the rule is left
uncorrected, sampling would not have to be performed during charging
and tapping, both of which generate emissions; consequently, sampling
only when melting would not be representative of the complete EAF
production cycle.
    Paragraph (d)(4) of 40 CFR 63.10686 states the Administrator must
approve procedures that will be used to determine compliance when
emissions are combined with those from facilities not subject to this
subpart. We are clarifying that these and other site-specific factors
for a few facilities with a complex configuration of facilities
controlled by a common emission control system must receive the
Administrator's approval of procedures to determine compliance,
including cases in which emissions are combined from multiple
facilities subject to this subpart and when combined from multiple
facilities that include both those subject and not subject to the
subpart.

C. Certifying Initial Compliance Based on Previous Tests

    Paragraph (d)(6) of 40 CFR 63.10686 (What are the requirements for
electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?) allows
the owner or operator to use a previous performance test for an
emissions source to demonstrate initial compliance for that emissions
source provided the tests meet the rule's requirements: (1) The
previous test must have been conducted within 5 years of the compliance
date of the current rule using the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of Sec.  63.10686, (2) the previous test was for that facility, and
(3) the previous test was representative of current or anticipated
operating processes and conditions. The rule also includes provisions
in paragraph (d)(2) for conducting a new test if the permitting
authority finds that the previous test is unacceptable.
    This final rule makes three changes to the provisions governing the
use of a previous performance test as the basis for certifying initial
compliance. The first change allows the use of a previous test
conducted for compliance certification according to the facility's
title V permit if the test was conducted within 5 years of the
compliance date for the current rule. This change is consistent with
our intent to allow the use of a valid previous performance test, such
as a test conducted for compliance certification in the facility's
title V permit, if the test was conducted within 5 years of the
compliance date. The second change is the addition of a provision which
states that, if results of a previous performance test are utilized,
the previous performance tests for PM emissions and melt shop opacity
are not required to have been conducted simultaneously. We are making
this change to prevent the unnecessary burden of requiring a new PM
performance test simply because opacity observations were not made
during the previous PM performance test. The opacity of fugitive
emissions and the PM emission control performance can be measured
separately to determine compliance. The third change is the addition of
new paragraph (d)(7) which allows use of the baseline parametric
monitoring information collected during a prior performance test to
meet the requirements in 40 CFR 60.275a(f) if the information was
collected under conditions that are representative of current or
anticipated operating conditions. Documentation of representative
conditions would be provided in the test report for the prior
performance test and in company records of the EAF steel production
rate during the test. This clarification also reduces the unnecessary
burden of requiring a new performance test just to collect operating
data to establish baseline parameters (e.g., fan motor amperes or
volumetric flow rate) when these parameters have already been
established during previous valid performance tests.

D. Definition of ``Scrap Provider''

    Section 63.10692 of the current rule (What definitions apply to
this subpart?) defines a ``scrap provider'' (a term used in the
pollution prevention standards for mercury) as ``the person (including
a broker) who contracts directly with a steel mill to provide scrap
that contains motor vehicle scrap. Scrap processors such as shredder
operators or vehicle dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a
steel mill are not scrap providers.'' This final rule adds a sentence
to include within the definition EAF steel making facilities that own
and operate a scrap shredder. Under this final rule, a scrap provider
is:

    * * * the person (including a broker) who contracts directly
with a steel mill to provide scrap that contains motor vehicle
scrap. The owner or operator of an EAF steelmaking facility that
also owns and operates a scrap shredder is a scrap provider for
motor vehicle scrap that is processed in that shredder and supplied
to the EAF steelmaking facility. Scrap processors such as shredder
operators or vehicle dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to
a steel mill are not scrap providers.

    This change is necessary because the previous definition did not
address the possibility that EAF steelmaking facilities that operate
their own onsite scrap shredders also can be scrap providers. There are
a few instances where this occurs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These final amendments clarify applicability of the opacity limit, make
the performance test requirements for particulate matter consistent
with requirements in the new source performance standards for electric
arc

furnace steelmaking facilities, allow title V test data to be used to
demonstrate compliance, and revise the definition of ``scrap provider''
to include electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that own and
operate a scrap shredder. No new burden is associated with these
requirements because the burden was included in the approved
information request (ICR) for the existing rule. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR
part 63 subpart YYYYY) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0608. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (whose parent company has fewer than 1,000
employees for NAICS code 331111); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that the nine small entities in this area source category
will not incur any adverse impacts because this action makes only
technical corrections and clarifications that increase flexibility and
does not create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are
associated with these amendments to the NESHAP.

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. The term ``enforceable duty''
does not include duties and conditions in voluntary Federal contracts
for goods and services. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The technical
corrections and clarifications made through this action contain no
requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon
them, and will not result in any expenditures by them or any
disproportionate impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires 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'' are 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 final 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. The final rule makes certain
technical corrections and clarifications to the NESHAP for EAF
steelmaking area sources. These final corrections and clarifications do
not impose requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This final
rule makes certain technical corrections and clarifications to the
NESHAP for EAF steelmaking area sources. These final corrections and
clarifications do not impose requirements on tribal governments. They
also have no 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 action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it makes
technical corrections and clarifications to the area source NESHAP for
EAF steelmaking facilities which is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the
Office of Management and Budget, explanations when the Agency does not
use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

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.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The technical corrections and clarifications in this final
rule do not change the level of control required by the NESHAP.

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 Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final
rule amendments 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 final rule amendments in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective
on March 2, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 24, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart YYYYY--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.10686 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(v);
0
c. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (d)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(6); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (d)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.10686  What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due to the operations of any
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Method 5 or 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
the PM concentration. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a PM
performance test. For EAF, you must either meet the requirements in 40
CFR 60.275a for the sampling time and volume for each run, or each run
must consist of at least one heat cycle as defined in 40 CFR 60.271a
(i.e., a test run must include charging, melting and tapping
operations). For AOD vessels, sample only during the heat cycle.
    (2) * * * When emissions from any EAF or AOD vessel are combined
with emissions from emission sources not subject to this subpart, you
must demonstrate compliance with the melt shop opacity limit based on
emissions from the emission sources subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) You must notify and receive approval from the Administrator for
procedures that will be used to determine compliance for an EAF or AOD
vessel when emissions are combined with those from facilities not
subject to this subpart, combined with those from multiple facilities
subject to this subpart, or both.
* * * * *
    (6) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is
subject to the emissions limits in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section, you may certify initial compliance with the applicable
emission limit for one or more emissions sources based on the results
of a previous performance test for that emissions source in lieu of the
requirement for an initial performance test provided that the test(s)
were conducted within 5 years of the compliance date; the test(s) were
conducted using the methods and procedures specified in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section or were conducted as specified for
compliance certification testing in the facility's title V permit; the
test(s) were for the affected facility; and the test(s) were
representative of current or anticipated operating processes and
conditions. The previous performance tests for PM emissions and melt
shop opacity are not required to have been conducted simultaneously.
Should the permitting authority deem the prior test data unacceptable
to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissions limit, the owner
or operator must conduct an initial performance test within 180 days of
the compliance date or within 90 days of receipt of the notification of
disapproval of the prior test, whichever is later.
    (7) You may use information collected during a prior performance
test to meet the parametric monitoring requirements in 40 CFR
60.275a(f) if the information was collected under conditions that are
representative of current or anticipated operating conditions.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.10692 is amended by revising the definition of ``Scrap
provider'' to read as follows:

Sec.  63.10692  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Scrap provider means the person (including a broker) who contracts
directly with a steel mill to provide scrap that contains motor vehicle
scrap. The owner or operator of an EAF steelmaking facility that also
owns and operates a scrap shredder is a scrap provider for motor
vehicle scrap that is processed in that shredder and supplied to the
EAF steelmaking facility. Scrap processors such as shredder operators
or vehicle dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a steel mill
are not scrap providers.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-28455 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TEM March 5, 2003 The Total Exposure Model ( TEM) is a combination mechanistic and stochastic model. It models physical and chemical processes which govern the transport of chemicals from tap water into indoor air environments ( e. g. showering, clothes washing, dish washing) and stochastically models the related human activities that would also govern the ultimate human exposure.

Purpose: TEM predicts the exposure and dose to an individual resulting from use of a contaminated water supply by modeling the fundamental physical and chemical processes that occur during the interaction between the contaminated media ( in this case, the air and water) and the exposed individuals. Using finite difference techniques, TEM estimates the mass transfer of the chemicals from the water to the air during water use activities. TEM predicts the resultant water concentrations during use and air concentrations throughout the house. Using these predicted air and water concentrations and location information provided by field studies, TEM estimates potential exposure to the subject. This model Contact: Jerry Blancato ( 702) 798 2356 Las Vegas; ( 919) 541 3288 while on detail to RTP.

Short term Followup: Since this model is predominantly designed to support indoor exposure assessments and is likely to require more data than is typically available during a typical environmental assessment. It is therefore unlikely to prove useful in the planning process. Evaluate the Multimedia, Multipathway and Multireceptor Risk Assessment ( 3MRA) Model, which may be better matches for the 304( m) planning process. Based on the review of 3MRA, there may be no need for further investigation of this tool.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 3436]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR19-34-000.
    Applicants: Washington Gas Light Company.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: New Rate Election
for Firm Transportation Service to be effective 2/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/1/19.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>68.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/19.

    Docket Number: PR19-35-000.
    Applicants: Southcross Mississippi Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+(g): Petition for Rate
Approval and Amended Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective
2/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/1/19.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>17.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/19.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/22/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-289-001.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing Offer and Petition for Approval of
Settlement--Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/5/19.
    Accession Number: 20190205-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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 comment date. 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: February 6, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02079 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P