[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35021]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-14-000]

Reliability Standards Development and NERC and Regional Entity
Enforcement; Notice of Technical Conference

June 15, 2010.
    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will hold a Commissioner-led Technical Conference to
address industry perspectives on certain issues pertaining to the
development and enforcement of mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System. The conference will focus on the Electric
Reliability Organization's (ERO) standards development process;
communication and interactions between the Commission, the ERO and
Regional Entities; and ERO and Regional Entity monitoring and
enforcement.
    This Technical Conference will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, in
the Commission Meeting Room (2C) at the Commission's Washington, DC
headquarters, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, from approximately
10 a.m. until 4 p.m. (e.d.t.). A further notice with detailed
information, including the agenda, will be issued in advance of this
conference. All interested parties are invited, and there is no
registration list or registration fee to attend.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    Questions about this conference may be directed to:
    Karin L. Larson, Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Christopher Young, Office of Electric Reliability, Division of
Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14944 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 126 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39128-39135]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0616; FRL-10010-57-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Infrastructure for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements
of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Arkansas (State) for the 2015 Ozone (O3) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submittal addresses how the
existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the 2015 O3 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). The i-
SIP ensures that the Arkansas SIP is adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA for this NAAQS. We are also proposing to
approve changes to the State's regulations to bring the State's rule up
to date and consistent with the 2015 O3 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0616, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Robert M. Todd, (214)
665-2156<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The docket index and publicly available docket materials
for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov.
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available due to file size or content
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Todd, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our''
means the EPA.

I. Background

    Below is a short discussion of the background on the 2015
O3 NAAQS and the SIP revisions addressed in this action. For
more information, please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) in
the docket for this action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The TSD for this action can be accessed through
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0616).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a periodic review of the 2008 NAAQS for O3,
EPA revised the primary and secondary O3 NAAQS to 0.070 ppm
(80 FR 65291, October 26, 2015).\2\ The primary NAAQS is designed to
protect human health, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect
the public welfare.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional information on the history of the NAAQS for ozone
is available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/table-historical-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
    \3\ Information on ozone formation and health effects is
available at https://www.epa.gov/ozonepollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This type of
SIP submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP'' or
``i-SIP''. These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity in some of the
language of CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate
to interpret these provisions in the specific context of acting on
infrastructure SIP submissions. EPA has provided guidance on the
application of infrastructure provisions in SIP submissions and applied
such guidance in regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\4\ We
are following that existing approach in acting on this submission. In
addition, in the context of acting on such infrastructure submissions,
EPA evaluates the submitting state's SIP for facial compliance with
statutory and regulatory requirements, not for the state's
implementation of its SIP.\5\ The EPA has other CAA authority to
address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules,
regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013, Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/guidance_on_infrastructure_sip_elements_multipollutant_final_sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Louisiana's infrastructure SIP to address the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 PB, 2008 O3, 2010 NO2,
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (81 FR 68322
(October 4, 2016)).
    \5\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS showing how it meets the
elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. This section of the CAA
includes a list of specific elements necessary for a state's air
quality program. On October 4, 2019, the Governor of Arkansas made one
submission to address the 2015 NAAQS for O3.\6\ The
submittal addressed CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additional information, including the history of the
priority pollutants, their levels, the forms of the standard and the
determination of compliance; EPA's approach for reviewing the i-SIP
submittal and EPA's evaluation; the statute and regulatory citations
in the Arkansas SIP specific to the review of this i-SIP, applicable
CAA and EPA regulatory citations, Federal Register citations for the
Arkansas SIP approvals; Arkansas minor New Source Review program and
EPA approval activities, and Arkansas' Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program can be found in the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that the Arkansas SIP meets the requirements in
CAA section 110(a)(1) and parts of section 110(a)(2). Specifically, we
are proposing to approve the Arkansas i-SIP as it demonstrates
compliance with CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A) through (C) and
(E) through (M). We are also proposing that Arkansas' i-SIP
demonstrates compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
Interference with Prevention of Significant Deterioration (often
referred to as prong 3) and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Interstate
Pollution Abatement (which refers to CAA section 126) and International
Air Pollution (which refers to CAA section 115). The remaining portions
of the October 4, 2019, submittal, addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as interstate transport prongs 1
and 2, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), often referred to as
interstate transport prong 4, will be addressed in separate, subsequent
actions.\7\ A copy of the State's submittal is provided in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In an earlier action we proposed to approve the Arkansas
submittal for interstate transport prong 4 (visibility protection).
See 85 FR 14847 (March 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, on September 27, 2019, after due opportunity for public
notice and comment and following all the state's required
administrative procedures the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission (APC&EC) adopted changes to Regulation 19 (Regulations of
the Arkansas Plan for Air Pollution Control). Regulation 19 changes
were made to Chapter 2, Definitions and Appendix B, National Ambient
Air Quality Standards List, that bring the state's rules up to date and
consistent with the 2015 O3 NAAQS. These changes were
included in the i-SIP submittal. We are proposing to approve these
changes into the Arkansas SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Submission

    Below is a summary of our evaluation of the October 4, 2019,
Arkansas submittal for each element of CAA section 110(a)(2) that we
are proposing to approve.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the
TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A). Emission limits and other control measures: The SIP must
include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means
or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act and
other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce each
of the NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172,
not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section
110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or
emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
Those SIP provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan
and will be addressed separately from the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not
evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead,
EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural
provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State provided information to show that Arkansas' SIP contains
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures
requirements. The relevant provisions to address such requirements are
included in the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act (AWAPCA),
Arkansas Code Annotated (``Ark. Code Ann.'') section 8-4-101 et seq.,
and those provisions of the APC&EC Regulation 19, codified in 40 CFR
52.170. The regulations in APC&EC Regulation 19 have been duly adopted
by the State and where these provisions relate to CAA section 110
requirements, SIP revisions have been submitted to and approved by EPA.
The EPA-approved SIP revisions are codified at 40 CFR part 52, subpart
E. Arkansas has an EPA-approved air permitting program for both major
and minor facilities, which ensures that all applicable requirements
are included in any applicable facility permit. A detailed list of the
applicable authorities and regulations is provided in the TSD in the
docket to this action. Arkansas' SIP contains enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, which are also in the federally
enforceable SIP.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: The SIP must
provide for establishment and implementation of ambient air quality
monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and
providing such data to EPA upon request.
    The SIP-approved APC&EC Regulation 19, Chapter 3 allows the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to collect air
monitoring data, quality-assure the results, and report the data.
Arkansas' Statewide Air Quality Surveillance Network was approved by
EPA on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005) and consists of stations that
measure ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants. ADEQ
maintains and operates a monitoring network to measure levels of ozone,
as well as other pollutants, in accordance with EPA regulations
specifying siting and monitoring requirements. All monitoring data is
measured using EPA approved methods and subject to the EPA quality
assurance requirements. ADEQ submits all required data to us, following
the EPA regulations. The monitoring network was approved into the SIP
and it undergoes annual review by EPA.\10\ In addition, ADEQ submits an
assessment of its monitoring network every five years, as required by
EPA rules. The most recent of these annual monitoring network
assessments was submitted by ADEQ and approved by us on November 12,
2019. The most recent of the five-year monitoring assessments was
submitted by ADEQ and approved by us on July 22, 2016. The ADEQ website
provides the monitor locations and posts past and current
concentrations of criteria pollutants measured by the State's network
of monitors.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A copy of the 2019 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and
our approval letter, as well as the most recent five-year assessment
and approval letter, are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    \11\ https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/air_chem_lab/ozone_monitors.aspx?desktop_version=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures: The SIP must
include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for
enforcement of the measures in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); (2) a minor
new source review (NSR) program for the regulation of new and modified
minor stationary sources and minor modifications of new major
stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS; and
(3) a major stationary source permit program to meet the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements of the CAA (for
areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in
question). Each of these elements is described in more detail in the
TSD for this action.
    (1) Enforcement of SIP measures: The state must provide a program
for enforcement of the necessary control measures described in
subparagraph (A).
    As discussed previously, the AWAPCA provides the ADEQ with
authority to enforce the State's environmental quality rules. The ADEQ
established rules governing emissions of the NAAQS and their precursors
throughout the state, and these rules are in the federally-enforceable
SIP. The rules in Regulation 19, Chapters 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13 and 14;
Regulation 26, Chapters 3 and Regulation 31, Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 8
include allowable rates, compliance, control plan requirements,
monitoring and testing requirements, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and control schedules. These rules set the boundaries
beyond which regulated entities in Arkansas can expect enforcement
action.
    To meet the CAA requirement for having a program for the regulation
of the modification and construction of any stationary source within
the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national
ambient air quality standards are achieved--including a permit program
as required by Parts C and D--generally, the State is required to have
SIP-approved PSD, Nonattainment, and Minor NSR permitting programs
adequate to implement the 2015 O3 NAAQS. As explained in
section I above and footnote 5, we are not evaluating nonattainment-
related provisions--such as the Nonattainment NSR program required by
part D in section 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by
section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs for these
NAAQS--because these submittals are required beyond the date (3 years
from NAAQS promulgation) that CAA section 110 infrastructure submittals
are required.
    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The SIP is required to include
measures to regulate construction and modification of minor stationary
sources and minor modifications to major stationary sources to protect
the NAAQS. The Arkansas minor NSR permitting requirements are approved
as part of the SIP.\12\ Arkansas' minor

source permitting requirements are contained at APC&EC Regulation 19,
Chapter 4 and revisions to the rule were previously approved by EPA at
72 FR 18394 (April 12, 2007) and 83 FR 30553 (June 29, 2018). The SIP
continues to require preconstruction permits for minor sources and
minor modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA is not proposing in this action to approve or
disapprove the existing Arkansas minor NSR program to the extent
that it may be inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this
program. EPA has maintained that the CAA does not require that new
infrastructure SIP submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-
approved provisions of minor NSR programs for EPA to approve the
infrastructure SIP for element C, program for enforcement of control
measures (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). The statutory requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act provide for considerable flexibility
in designing minor NSR programs. See the TSD for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) PSD permit program for major stationary sources. The Arkansas
PSD portion of the SIP covers all NSR regulated pollutants including
the requirements for the 2015 O3 NAAQS. See the TSD to this
proposal for a full history on the state's PSD permitting program.
    (D) Interstate and international transport: The requirements for
interstate transport of O3 emissions are that the SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting Arkansas emissions which will
(1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2)
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with measures
required to prevent significant deterioration or (4) interfere with
measures to protect visibility (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) in other
states. As noted earlier, EPA often refers to these four requirements
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as prongs or sub-elements. We are
not evaluating prongs 1, 2, and 4 in this rulemaking action, but will
address them in separate actions. However, we are proposing to approve
prong 3 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Arkansas has a SIP-
approved PSD permitting program that regulates all NSR pollutants, and
thus, prevents interference with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration in other states.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
adequate provisions to ensure compliance with sections 115 and 126 of
the Act, relating to international and interstate pollution abatement.
Section 115 of the Act addresses endangerment of public health or
welfare in foreign countries from pollution emitted in the United
States. There are no final findings by the EPA that Arkansas air
emissions affect other countries. Section 126(a) of the Act requires
new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential
impacts from such sources. The Arkansas SIP requires that each major
proposed new or modified source provide such notification. The State
also has no pending obligations under CAA section 126. See the TSD for
more detail.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight:
The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that
the state (and other entities within the state responsible for
implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there
are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements
relating to state boards; and (3) necessary assurances that the state
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan
provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to
carry out that portion of the plan. As discussed in previously in the
discussion of elements (A) and (E), the requirement that there is
adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are
no legal impediments are addressed. The i-SIP submission for the 2015
O3 NAAQS describes the SIP regulations governing the various
functions of personnel within the ADEQ, including the administrative,
technical support, planning, enforcement, and permitting functions of
the program. With respect to necessary assurances, and the requirement
to address funding, Arkansas has authority to establish and collect
fees for operation of the state's permitting programs. Ark. Code Ann.
section 8-1-103(1)(A) grants APC&EC the authority to establish, by
regulation, reasonable fees for initial issuance, annual review, and
modification of permits. Under Ark. Code Ann. section 8-1-103(3), ADEQ
is authorized to collect the fees established by APC&EC and shall deny
the issuance of an initial permit, a renewal permit, or a modification
permit if and when a facility fails or refuses to pay the fees after
reasonable notice. APC&EC Regulation 9, Fee Regulation, Chapter 5 Air
Permit Fees, contains the air permit fees applicable to non-part 70
permits, part 70 permits and general permits. More specific information
on permitting fees is provided in the TSD.
    With respect to authority and personnel, Ark. Code Ann. section 8-
1-202(b)(2)(D) states that the Director of ADEQ's duties include the
day-to-day administration of all activities that the Department is
empowered by law to perform, including, but not limited to, the
employment and supervision of such technical, legal, and administrative
staff, within approved appropriations, as is necessary to carry out the
responsibilities vested with ADEQ. The AWAPCA provides the ADEQ
adequate authority, in part ``to administer and enforce all laws and
regulations relating to pollution of the air.'' Ark. Code Ann. section
8-4-311(7). APC&EC Regulation 19.301 gives ADEQ the responsibility of
meeting all applicable regulations and requirements contained in the
CAA, as amended, if any area of the state is determined to be in
violation of the NAAQS. APC&EC Regulation 19.410 gives ADEQ the
authority to revoke, suspend, or modify any permit for cause. For
further details, please refer to the TSD.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the State's SIP comply
with CAA section 128, which requires: (1) That the majority of the
members of the state body that approves permits or enforcement orders
do not derive any significant portions of their income from entities
subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any
potential conflicts of interest by such body be adequately disclosed.
In 1982, the EPA approved the State's SIP submittal to demonstrate
compliance of the SIP with Section 128 of the CAA. 47 FR 19136 (May 4,
1982). The submittal cited AWAPCA section 82-1901 as demonstrating
compliance with CAA section 128(a)(1) and cited Arkansas Code of Ethics
Law Act 570 of 1979, Section 3: Use of Public Office to Obtain Special
Privilege Prohibited: Section 4: Use and Disclosure of Information--
Acquired by Reason of Office Activities Requiring Disclosure; Section
5: Requirement to File Statement and Section 6: Statements Period
Retained Public Access Signature Required.
    Under APC&EC Regulation 8.202, the Director or the Director's
delegate shall issue all permits with nothing in APC&EC Regulation 8
being construed to authorize APC&EC to issue a permit, including the
power to reverse or affirm a permitting decision by the Director. Under
Ark. Code Ann. section 21-8-1001, no member of a state board or
commission or board member of an entity receiving state funds shall
participate in, vote on, influence or attempt to influence an official
decision if the member has pecuniary interest in the matter under
consideration by the board, commission, or entity. In addition, no
member of a state board or commission or board member of an entity
receiving state funds shall participate in any discussion or vote on a
rule or regulation that exclusively benefits the member. As required by
the CAA, the SIP stipulates that any board or body, which approves
permits or enforcement orders, must have at least a majority of members
who represent the public interest and do not derive any ``significant
portion'' of their income from persons subject to permits and
enforcement orders or who appear before the board on issues related to
the CAA. The members of the board or body, or the head of an agency
with similar powers, are required to adequately disclose any potential

conflicts of interest. While the ADEQ has no board or commission, the
ADEQ submitted a letter dated January 19, 2012, that clarified that the
Director of the ADEQ is considered the ``the head of an executive
agency with similar powers,'' and must meet the requirement to
adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) concerning local
governments or other entities, are not applicable to Arkansas because
it does not rely on local agencies for specific SIP implementation.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP must provide for
the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such sources. The SIP
shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources and require that
the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations or
standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made
available for public inspection at reasonable times.
    The relevant regulatory requirements have been codified in APC&E
Regulation 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for
Air Pollution Control, Chapter 7 (pertaining to sampling and testing).
Provisions in APC&EC Chapter 7, Regulation 19.705 provide for the
reporting of emissions inventories in a format established by the ADEQ
on a schedule set forth in that section. In addition, APC&EC Regulation
19.705 requires the submission of emission statements as required by
the CAA. Area, mobile, and non-road data are required to be reported on
a three-year cycle.
    Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures are
covered in the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act and those
provisions of Ark. Code Ann. sections 8-4-310 and 8-4-311. Elements of
the program for enforcement are found in the monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for sources in these control measures as
well as individual SIP permits.
    More detail and links to Arkansas' emissions data are provided in
the TSD for this action.
    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide for authority to
address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare or the environment and to include contingency
plans to implement such authorities as necessary.
    Ark. Code Ann. section 8-1-202(b)(2)(C) empowers the ADEQ to issue
orders under circumstances that reasonably require emergency measures
to be taken to protect the environment or the public health and safety.
APC&EC Regulation 8.502 requires ADEQ to publish a Notice of Emergency
Order in a newspaper covering the affected area, or in a newspaper of
statewide circulation. The notice must contain a description of the
action, ADEQ's authority for taking the action and other information
appropriate to ensure the public is informed about the action. Ark.
Code Ann. section 8-4-202(e)(1) empowers APC&EC to declare an emergency
and implement emergency rules, regulations, suspensions, or moratoria
on categories or types of permits if APC&EC determines that imminent
peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires immediate
change in the rules or immediate suspension or moratorium on categories
or types of permits. APC&EC Regulation 8, Administrative Procedures,
Regulation 8.807 authorizes the Commission to waive or reduce the
notice requirements in cases involving emergency rulemaking. No
emergency rule shall be effective for more than 180 days.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise
their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of
improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA
finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
    The AWAPCA, Section 82-1935(1), empowers the APC&EC to ``formulate
and promulgate, amend, repeal, and enforce rules and regulations
implementing or effectuating the powers and duties of the Commission [.
. .] to control air pollution''. Therefore, Arkansas has the authority
to revise its SIP as may be necessary to take into account revisions of
primary or secondary NAAQS, or the availability of improved or more
expeditious methods of attaining such standards. Furthermore, Arkansas
also has the authority under the AWAPCA provisions to revise its SIP in
the event the EPA (pursuant to the Act) finds the SIP to be
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. APC&EC Regulation 19,
Regulations of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution
Control, Chapter 1, provides a clear delineation of those regulations
that are promulgated by APC&EC in satisfaction of certain requirements
of the CAA. Ark. Code Ann. section 8-4-311(a)(7) empowers ADEQ to
administer and enforce all laws and regulations relating to pollution
of the air. Ark. Code Ann. section 8-4-202(d)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes
APC&EC to refer to the Code of Federal Regulations for any APC&EC
standard or regulation that is identical to a regulation promulgated by
the EPA. The APC&EC's Regulation 19, Regulations of the Arkansas Plan
of Implementation for Air Pollution Control, Chapter 1, demonstrates
that those regulations that are promulgated by the Commission satisfy
the requirements of this provision of the CAA.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in
the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as
nonattainment, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of
the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment
areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address
CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). The specific SIP submissions for designated
nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject
to different submission schedules than those for section 110
infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will act on any part D
nonattainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking
process governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as
described in part D.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Arkansas does not presently have any designated ozone
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three
CAA requirements: (1) Section 121, relating to interagency consultation
regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public
notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; (3) prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality; and (4) visibility
protection.
    Under APC&EC Regulation 19, Chapter 9, Arkansas has incorporated by
reference the requirements in 40 CFR part 52 for PSD in their entirety,
with the exception of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a), 52.21(b)(49),
52.21(b)(50), 52.21(b)(55-58), 52.21(i) and 52.21(cc). These provisions
were approved by EPA as part of the federally-approved SIP. These
incorporated provisions also provide for protection of visibility in
Federal Class I areas. All new major sources and major modifications
are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program,
including GHG PSD permitting that was approved on April

2, 2013 (78 FR 19596) and PM2.5 PSD permitting approved on
March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11573). Chapter 9 of APC&EC Regulation 19
authorizes enforcement of regulations governing the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality and regulations governing the
protection of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas. The
visibility sub-element of Element J is not being addressed because as
EPA stated in a September 13, 2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' we believe that there are no newly applicable visibility
protection obligations pursuant to Element J after the promulgation of
new or revised NAAQS.
    (1) Consultation With Identified Official on Certain Actions: The
i-SIP needs to show that there is an established process for
consultation with general purpose local governments, designated
organization of elected officials of local governments, and any federal
land manager having authority over federal land to which the plan
applies, consistent with CAA section 121, which lists the specific
types of actions for which consultation is required. If the relevant
statute is self-executing such that there is no associated regulation
or other documents, then the statute would need to be included in the
SIP. If a regulation or other document meeting the CAA requirements
exists, then the regulation or other document would need to be included
in the SIP submission, and the authorizing statute should be referenced
but the statute is not required to be part of the EPA approved SIP.
Under the requirements of 40 CFR 51.240, the SIP would need to identify
organizations ``that will participate in developing, implementing, and
enforcing the plan and the responsibilities of such organizations.''
The plan should include any agreements or memoranda of understanding
among the organizations. The AWAPCA, as codified under Ark Code Ann.
section 8-1-203 provides that the APC&EC ``shall meet regularly in
publicly noticed open meetings to discuss and rule upon matters of
environmental concern'' prior to the adoption of any rule or regulation
implementing the substantive statutes charged to the ADEQ for
administration. In addition, Ark. Code Ann. section 8-4-311(a)(2)
provides that the ADEQ or its successor shall have the power and duty
``to advise, consult, and cooperate with other agencies of the state,
political subdivisions, industries, other states, the Federal
Government, and with affected groups in the furtherance of the purposes
of this chapter.'' Further, Regulation 19.904(D) provides that ADEQ
shall make determinations that a source may affect air quality or
visibility in a mandatory Class I federal area based on screening
criteria agreed upon by the ADEQ and the Federal Land Manager.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 72 FR 18394 (April 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Public Notification: The i-SIP submission needs to demonstrate
that the air agency does regularly notify the public of instances or
areas in which the new or revised primary NAAQS was exceeded; it needs
to advise the public of health hazards associated with such exceedances
and of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other
efforts to improve air quality. Public notification begins with the air
quality forecasts, which advise the public of conditions capable of
exceeding the 8-hour ozone \15\ and PM2.5 NAAQS. The air
quality forecasts can be found on the ADEQ website: For 8- hour ozone
and PM2.5, the forecast includes two regions in the State.
Ozone forecasts are made daily during the ozone season for each of the
forecast areas.\16\ The ozone forecasts are made, in most cases, a day
in advance by 2:00 p.m. local time and are valid for the next day. When
the forecast indicates that ozone levels will be above the 8-hour ozone
standard, the ADEQ and the Arkansas Department of Health issue an Ozone
Health Advisory. In addition, the State implements an Ozone Action Day
(OAD) program \17\ and will issue an ozone alert in the afternoon on
the day before an elevated level of ozone is expected to occur.
Announcements for an OAD will be broadcast through television and other
news media, and to employers participating in the OAD program. The OAD
program includes examples of actions that can be implemented by
individuals and organizations to reduce ozone levels and exposure to
ozone. Also, through the Metroplan website, the public can subscribe to
an electronic information system that provides air quality forecast and
ozone alert information via email. Ozone data are posted on the ADEQ
website; current, regional hourly and regional 8-hour ozone data are
posted hourly (See http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/air_chem_lab/ozone_monitors.aspx). Provisions regarding public availability of
emission data were also approved into the Arkansas SIP on April 12,
2007 (72 FR 18394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The ADEQ forecasts for 8-hour ozone are based on the 2015
ozone standard, which is 70 ppb.
    \16\ Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. Ground level
ozone is generally not emitted directly from a vehicle's exhaust or
an industrial smokestack but is created by a chemical reaction
between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and high
ambient temperatures. Thus, ozone is known primarily as a summertime
air pollutant. For Arkansas, the ozone season runs from March 1
through November 31 (see 40 CFR 58, APPENDIX D, Table D-3). The
Arkansas air quality control regions are defined at 45 FR 6571
(January 29, 1980).
    \17\ The 2 forecast areas for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
are Little Rock and Springdale. See https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/air_chem_lab/ozone_monitors.aspx and https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/air_chem_lab/pm_monitors.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) PSD: CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires Arkansas to meet the
applicable requirements of Part C, PSD. The state has a comprehensive
EPA approved PSD permitting program, including GHG PSD permitting, in
the Arkansas SIP. The PSD requirements for this sub-element are much
the same as those addressed earlier under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C),
Program for enforcement of control measures.
    (4) Visibility Protection: The ADEQ SIP requirements relating to
visibility protection are not affected when EPA establishes or revises
a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes that there are no new visibility
protection requirements due to the revision of the NAAQS, and
consequently there are no newly applicable visibility protection
obligations.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for
performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the
effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant,
and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    APC&EC Regulation 19, Chapter 3, requires that ADEQ conduct ambient
air monitoring and computer modeling of regulated air pollutant
emissions in any area that can reasonably be expected to be in excess
of the NAAQS and to review the ambient air impacts of any new or
modified source of federally regulated air emission that is the subject
of the requirements of the SIP. See APC&EC Regulation 19.302(A) and
(B). Under APC&EC Regulation 19.302(B), all computer modeling shall be
performed using EPA-approved models and using averaging times
commensurate with averaging times stated in the NAAQS. ADEQ has the
ability to submit data related to air quality modeling to the EPA under
Ark. Code Ann. section 8-4-311(a)(2) which gives ADEQ the power to
advise, consult, and cooperate with the Federal Government. Modeling
and emissions reductions measures have been submitted by Arkansas and
approved into the SIP. For example, we reference the air modeling and
emissions reductions data submitted within the Crittenden County
Economic Development Zone SIP revisions, as

well as the demonstration of maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in Crittenden County. 81 FR 24030 (April 25, 2016). The
measures in these SIPs were approved by EPA and adopted into the SIP.
    The ADEQ has the power and duty, to conduct air quality research
and assessments, including the causes, effects, prevention, control and
abatement of air pollution. Past modeling and emissions reductions
measures have been submitted by the State and approved into the SIP.
Additionally, ADEQ can perform modeling for primary and secondary NAAQS
on a case-by-case permit basis consistent with their SIP approved PSD
rules and with EPA guidance.
    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a
condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of
reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if
the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms
of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program
established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to
operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    Arkansas' statutes give ADEQ the authority to establish permit fees
and adjust them as necessary. APC&EC Regulation No 26, Chapter 11 meets
the CAA requirements for Title V permitting fee programs and Regulation
No. 9, Chapter 5 contains the air permit fees applicable to non-part 70
permits and general permits.\18\ The ADEQ has adequate authority to
hire and compensate employees; accept and administer grants or other
funds; establish an emissions fee schedule for sources in order to fund
the reasonable costs of administering various air pollution control
programs; and authorizes the collection of additional fees necessary to
cover reasonable costs associated with processing air permit
applications and the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and
provisions of the permits. The state has in place fee programs for
major and minor sources of air pollution, as well as an area source
operating fee program that covers other sources in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Last approved by EPA at 83 FR 6471, February 14, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP
must provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    See the earlier discussions for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J), sub-
elements (1) and (2) for a description of the SIP's public
participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD
SIP's public participation requirements. Ark. Code. Ann. section 8-1-
203 provides that the APC&EC shall meet regularly in publicly noticed
open meetings to discuss and rule upon matters of environmental concern
prior to the adoption of any rule or regulation implementing the
substantive statutes charged to the ADEQ for administration.
    Additionally, the state noted that pursuant to APC&EC Regulation 8,
Arkansas will continue to provide for consultation and participation
from those affected by the SIP. Under APC&EC Regulation 8, those
organizations affected by the SIP will be able to participate in
developing the SIP via comments and potential public hearings. ADEQ is
the sole state-level enforcer and implementer of the SIP. See APC&EC
Regulation 8.205 Public Notice of Permit Application; APC&EC
Regulation. 8.206 Request for Public Hearing on Application for Permit;
APC&EC Regulation 8.207 Public Notice of Draft Permitting Decision;
APC&EC Regulation. 8.208 Public Comment on Draft Permitting Decision;
APC&EC Regulation 8.209 Public Hearings; APC&EC Regulation 8.405 Public
Notice of Notices of Violations and Consent Administrative Orders;
APC&EC Regulation 8.801 Public Notice of Rulemaking.
    ADEQ participates in the Central State Air Resources Agencies,
which is an organization of states, tribes, federal agencies and other
interested parties concerned with air quality. The interactions and
public participation on rule and plan development are consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M).

Modifications to Regulation 19, Definitions and Regulation 19, Appendix
B

    As part of the state's implementation of the 2015 O3
NAAQS, the State modified their Regulation 19 definition of ``National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' to include the 2015 O3
NAAQS. The State also made the same change to the table entitled
``Appendix B: National Ambient Air Quality Standard List'' of
Regulation 19. The APC&EC adopted these changes on September 27, 2019
and submitted them for inclusion into the state SIP along with the 2015
O3 i-SIP elements. We find these changes are appropriate and
will enable the State to implement the 2015 O3 NAAQS. We are
proposing to approve the changes to Regulation 19, Definitions, and the
change to Regulation 19, Appendix B, into the Arkansas SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of the October 25, 2018,
Arkansas i-SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as detailed in Table
1, below. The portions of the submittal dealing with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment and Interference with Maintenance in other States, and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4, Interference with Visibility
Protection in other States will be addressed in separate, future
actions.

  Table 1--Proposed Action on Arkansas Infrastructure and Transport SIP
                   Submittals for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Element                         Proposed  action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control          A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data    A
 system.
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures...........  A
(C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and      A
 major modifications.
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources  A
 and minor modifications.
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/         SA
 interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1
 and 2).
(D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3).....................  A
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4)...  SA
(D)(ii): Interstate and International           A
 Pollution Abatement.

(E)(i): Adequate resources....................  A
(E)(ii): State boards.........................  A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to  A
 local agencies.
(F): Stationary source monitoring system......  A
(G): Emergency power..........................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions.....................  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions  +
 under part D.
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials  A
(J)(ii): Public notification..................  A
(J)(iii): PSD.................................  A
(J)(iv): Visibility protection................  +
(K): Air quality modeling and data............  A
(L): Permitting fees..........................  A
(M): Consultation and participation by          A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table 1:
A: Proposing to Approve.
+: Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
SA: EPA is acting on this infrastructure requirement in a separate
  rulemaking action.

    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submission and
relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced
in this submission or referenced in the EPA-approved Arkansas SIP, EPA
believes that Arkansas has the infrastructure in place to address all
applicable required elements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), except
as noted above, to ensure that the 2015 O3 NAAQS is
implemented in the State.
    We are also proposing to approve the submitted changes to
Regulation 19 Definitions and Appendix B that reference the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.

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

    Dated: June 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-13427 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71384-71385]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25346]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-265, OMB Control No. 3235-0273]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17Ad-
10

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-10 (17 CFR 240.17Ad-10), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17Ad-10 generally requires registered transfer agents to: (1)
create and maintain current and accurate securityholder records; (2)
promptly and accurately record all transfers, purchases, redemptions,
and issuances, and notify their appropriate regulatory agency if they
are unable to do so; (3) exercise diligent and continuous attention in
resolving record inaccuracies; (4) disclose to the issuers for whom
they perform transfer agent functions and to their appropriate
regulatory agency information regarding record inaccuracies; (5) buy-in
certain record inaccuracies that result in a physical over issuance of
securities; and (6) communicate with other transfer agents related to
the same issuer. These requirements assist in the creation and
maintenance of accurate securityholder records, enhance the ability to
research errors, and ensure the transfer agent is aware of the number
of securities that are properly authorized by the issuer, thereby
avoiding over issuance.
    The rule also has specific recordkeeping requirements. It requires
registered transfer agents to retain certificate detail that has been
deleted for six years and keep current an accurate record of the number
of shares or principal dollar amount of debt securities that the issuer
has authorized to be outstanding. These mandatory requirements ensure
accurate securityholder records and assist the Commission and other
regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule. This rule does not involve the collection of
confidential information.
    There are approximately 401 registered transfer agents. We estimate
that the average number of hours necessary for each transfer agent to
comply with Rule 17Ad-10 is approximately 80 hours per year, which
generates an industry-wide annual burden of approximately 32,080 hours
(401 times 80 hours). This burden is primarily of a recordkeeping
nature but also includes a small amount of third party disclosure. At
an average staff cost of $50 per hour, the industry-wide internal labor
cost of compliance (a monetization of the burden hours) is

approximately $1,604,000 per year (32,080 x $50).
    In addition, we estimate that each transfer agent will incur an
annual external cost burden of approximately $18,000 resulting from the
collection of information. Therefore, the total annual external cost on
the entire transfer agent industry is approximately $7,218,000 ($18,000
times 401). This cost primarily reflects ongoing computer operations
and maintenance associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing
or providing certain information required by the rule.
    The amount of time any particular transfer agent will devote to
Rule 17Ad-10 compliance will vary according to the size and scope of
the transfer agent's business activity. We note, however, that at least
some of the records, processes, and communications required by Rule
17Ad-10 would likely be maintained, generated, and used for transfer
agent business purposes even without the rule.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by December 22, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: November 16, 2022.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25346 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 222 (Wednesday, November 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72126-72129]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29395]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76431; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-104]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New Policy Relating to Trade Reports
for Exchange Traded Products

November 12, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 28, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes a new policy relating to its treatment of
trade reports for Exchange Traded Products that it determines to be
inconsistent with the prevailing market. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Trades in Exchange Traded Products (``ETP'') \4\ occasionally occur
at prices that deviate significantly from prevailing market prices and/
or an investment fund's underlying value. These trades may be due to
brief price dislocations caused, for example, by unusually large
orders, momentary reductions in liquidity, or brief trading or pricing
errors by individual market participants. The resulting trades may
occasionally establish a high, a low or last sale price for a security
that does not reflect price discovery in the fund holdings in a manner
that is representative of ongoing trading in an ETP tracking the real-
time value of the fund's underlying securities, and could impact
statistics for the investment fund as computed by third parties in a
way that is inappropriately reflective of very short-term market impact
rather than ongoing fund performance, leading to investor confusion.
For example, trading and quoting in a particular ETF holding a basket
of stocks reflecting the S&P 500 index might track that index with de
minimis tracking error every minute throughout all trading days for
five years, then suddenly trade 1% higher than the S&P 500 index on the
close one day due to a large order that was erroneously entered by a
single broker-dealer as a ``Market'' order rather than a ``Market on
Close'' order, hence trading through multiple price levels in

the book instantaneously rather than creating a disseminated imbalance
that would attract normally-priced contra-sided interest in a closing
auction. If this trade results in a daily last sale for the ETF that
materially differs from the fund's NAV, an investor using a third-party
Web site that utilizes trade data to compute tracking error statistics
for the ETF could be misled into thinking that the ETF does not provide
desired tracking performance to investors over time, when in fact the
apparent poor tracking was due only to a single aberrant trade. While
such events may occur randomly and on both sides of the market, because
tracking error, for example, is measured as a mean squared deviation
from NAV, both positive and negative divergence increase tracking error
and therefore upside and downside deviations compound, rather than
offset, over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this filing, ETPs include Exchange Traded
Funds (ETFs), Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs) and Exchange Traded
Vehicles (ETVs). An ETF is an open-ended registered investment
company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that has received
certain exemptive relief from the SEC to allow secondary market
trading in the ETF shares. ETFs are generally index-based products,
in that each ETF holds a portfolio of securities that is intended to
provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally
correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying
benchmark index. An ETV tracks the underlying performance of an
asset or index, allowing investors exposure to underlying assets
such as futures contracts, commodities and currencies without
actually trading futures or taking physical delivery of the
underlying asset. An ETV is traded intraday like an ETF. An ETV is
an open-ended trust or partnership unit that is registered under the
Securities Act of 1933. An ETN is a senior unsecured debt obligation
designed to track the total return of an underlying index, benchmark
or strategy, minus investor fees. ETNs are registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 and are redeemable to the issuer. In 2014,
NYSE Arca's listed ETPs had over $1.89 trillion in assets under
management (AUM), representing over 90% of all U.S. listed Exchange
Traded Products (ETPs). Additional information on ETPs is available
on the Exchange's Web site at https://www.nyse.com/products/etp-funds-etf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently has a policy to address such instances of
``aberrant'' trades for equity securities generally.\5\ The purpose of
this proposed rule change is to adopt an additional policy to address
instances of ``aberrant'' trades specific to ETPs traded on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59937 (May 18,
2009), 74 FR 25291 (May 27, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-24). The NYSE
Arca policy is substantially similar to policies adopted by other
markets. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59064 (December 5,
2008), 73 FR 76082 (December 15, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-91); and 59151
(December 23, 2008), 74 FR 158 (January 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-
100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With certain exceptions that are specific to the trading of ETPs,
the proposed rule change is identical to the policy previously adopted
by the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange believes that the derivatively-priced
nature of ETPs necessitates the use of a different, and generally
broader, set of circumstances to determine that trades are
``aberrant.'' Unlike common stocks, the ``fair value'' and arbitrage
pricing bands for an ETP are often known with a reasonably high degree
of accuracy, since creation/redemption baskets reflecting actual fund
holdings are disclosed daily and are available to be exchanged for new
ETP shares, or to be received for redeeming ETP shares, on a daily
basis, along with the dissemination of constituent information and
intraday pricing information such as Intraday Optimized Portfolio
Values (``IOPVs''). As a result, it is often the case that smaller
dislocations in ETP trade prices than in stock prices are manifestly
not reflective of the trading pattern in the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') offers each Participant
in the CTA Plan the discretion to append an indicator to a trade report
to indicate that the market believes that the price of a trade executed
on that market does not accurately reflect the prevailing market for
the security (an ``Aberrant Report Indicator'').\7\ During the course
of monitoring by the Exchange or as a result of notification by another
market, listed ETP issuer or market participant, the Exchange may
become aware of ETP trade prices that do not accurately reflect the
prevailing market for an ETP or an investment fund's underlying value.
In such a case, the Exchange proposes to apply a new policy pursuant to
which it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The CTA recommends that data recipients should exclude the
price of any trade to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has been
appended from any calculation of the high, low or last sale prices
for the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) May determine to append an Aberrant Report Indicator to any
trade report with respect to any ETP trade executed on the Exchange
that the Exchange determines to be inconsistent with the prevailing
market; and
    (ii) Would encourage vendors and other data recipients not to use
prices of trades to which the Exchange has appended the Aberrant Trade
Indicator in any calculation of the high, low or last sale price of an
ETP.
    The Exchange would provide to data users an explanation of the
parameters used in its aberrant trade policy and urge vendors to
disclose the exclusion from high, low or last sale price data of any
aberrant trades a vendor chooses to exclude from high, low or last sale
price information it disseminates. Upon initial adoption of the
Aberrant Report Indicator, the Exchange would also contact all of its
listed ETP issuers to explain the aberrant trade policy and inform
users of the information that trades appended with an Aberrant Report
Indicator are still valid trades and not unwound as in the case of a
clearly erroneous trade.\8\ In addition, the Exchange would inform an
NYSE Arca listed ETP issuer each time the Exchange appends an Aberrant
Report Indicator to a trade in such issuer's listed ETP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This proposed rule change would not impact a listed ETP
issuer's ability to seek cancellation of a transaction on the basis
that it was ``clearly erroneous'' under Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous
Executions). In the event that a listed ETP issuer files for a
transaction to be ``clearly erroneous,'' and the transaction is not
cancelled, the Exchange reserves discretion to append an Aberrant
Trade Indicator to the trade report to indicate that the market
believes that the trade price in a trade executed on that market
does not accurately reflect the prevailing market and/or value for
an ETP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CTA disseminates its own calculations of high, low and
last sale prices, vendors and other data recipients--and not the
Exchange--frequently determine their own, different methodology by
which they wish to calculate high, low and last sale prices. Therefore,
the Exchange would provide to vendors and data recipients an
explanation of the parameters used in its aberrant trade policy and the
potential deleterious effects that can result from including in the
calculations a trade to which the Aberrant Report Indicator has been
appended.
    In determining whether to append an Aberrant Report Indicator, the
proposed Exchange policy would be as follows:
    1. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Exchange will determine
whether a trade price does not reflect the prevailing market for an ETP
if the trade occurs at the greater of a minimum of 50 cents \9\ or 50
basis points \10\ away from a previous trade or valid ``Reference
Price''. The Exchange believes that these are conservative values that
are much larger than typical ETF arbitrage bounds, as evidenced for
example by bid-ask spreads, and therefore should only be exceeded in
cases where it may be appropriate to mark a given trade as aberrant,
subject to the further conditions in (2) below. For example, the
typical bid-ask spread in the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
(``EEM'') and the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (``VWO''), which
each hold many emerging-market stocks that may be lightly traded
individually, are both only 3 basis points over the 45 trading days
ending September 23, 2015, which included a particularly volatile
period of trading.\11\ As a result, and based on feedback from ETF
issuers, beyond this level the Exchange believes that issuer
performance measurements may be adversely impacted in a manner not
reflective of long-term fund performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As proposed, the 50 cent threshold would be applicable when
the trade price or Reference Price is $100 or below.
    \10\ As proposed, the 50 basis point threshold would be
applicable when the trade price or Reference Price is more than
$100.
    \11\ http://www.etf.com/EEM and http://www.etf.com/VWO, each
accessed September 24, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Reference Price'' refers to (a) if the primary market for an
ETP is open at the time of the trade, the national best bid or offer
for the ETP, or (b) if the primary market for an ETP is not open at the
time of the trade, the first executable quote or print for the ETP on
the primary market after execution of the trade in question. However,
if the circumstances suggest that a different Reference Price would be
more appropriate, the Exchange will use the different Reference Price.
For instance,

if the national best bid and offer for an ETP are so wide apart as to
fail to reflect the market for an ETP, the Exchange might use as the
Reference Price a trade price or best bid or offer that was available
prior to the trade in question.
    2. If the conditions in (1) above are met, the Exchange will
determine whether to append an Aberrant Report Indicator upon
consideration of all factors related to a trade, including the
following: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A majority of the factors listed are identical to factors
the Exchange considers in determining whether or not to append an
Aberrant Report Indicator to trades in equity securities under the
current policy. The Exchange has listed additional factors that it
will consider in determining whether or not to append an Aberrant
Report Indicator because these factors are specific to trading in
ETPs, such as Index change, reconstitutions and rebalances, changes
in availability of ETP creations and/or redemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Index changes, reconstitutions and rebalances;
     News released in the market where the ETP's assets are
primarily invested;
     Changes in availability of ETP creations and/or
redemptions;
     Executions in other derivative instruments tracking the
same underlying indices;
     ETP issuer credit risk changes;
     Whether the trade price represents a 52-week high or low
for the ETP;
     Whether the trade price reflects a share-split,
reorganization or other corporate action;
     System malfunctions or disruptions;
     Validity of consolidated tape trades and quotes;
     General market volatility of market conditions;
     Historical volume and volatility for the ETP;
     Material news released pertaining to the ETP;
     Whether trading in the ETP was recently halted/resumed;
     Trading bands, collars or circuit breakers;
     A request from the ETP issuer, provided with documentation
of a factual basis for believing that an execution is representative of
market impact or trading issues outside of the issuer's control, rather
than true price discovery; and
     Executions otherwise inconsistent with the trading pattern
in the ETP.
    The Exchange would consider each of these factors with a view
towards maintaining a fair and orderly market and the integrity of
reported trade data. If the Exchange determines to append the Aberrant
Report Indicator to a trade which represented the last sale of that ETP
on the Exchange during a trading session, the Exchange may also
determine to remove that trade's designation as the last sale. The
Exchange may do so either on the day of the trade or at a later date,
so as to provide reasonable time for the Exchange to conduct due
diligence regarding the trade, including the consideration of input
from markets and other market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\13\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Aberrant Report Indicator is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest in that the Exchange
will seek to ensure a proper understanding of the Aberrant Report
Indicator among securities market participants by: (i) Urging vendors
to disclose the exclusion from high, low or last sale price data of any
aberrant trades excluded from high, low or last sale price information
they disseminate and to provide to data users an explanation of the
parameters used in the Exchange's aberrant trade policy; (ii) informing
the affected listed ETP issuer each time the Exchange appends the
Aberrant Report Indicator to a trade in an NYSE Arca listed ETP; and
(iii) reminding the users of the information that these are still valid
trades in that they were executed and not unwound as in the case of a
clearly erroneous trade.
    The Exchange believes its proposal to append an Aberrant Report
Indicator to certain trades is a reasonable means to alert investors
and other market participants that the Exchange believes that the trade
price of an ETP executed on its market does not accurately reflect the
prevailing market for the ETP.

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. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to adopt a new
policy that is similar to an existing policy to alert investors and
other market participants that the Exchange believes that the trade
price of an ETP executed on its market does not accurately reflect the
prevailing market for the ETP.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or such longer time period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(a) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or (b)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-104 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-104. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-104 and should
be submitted on or before December 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29395 Filed 11-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16819-16820]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Attendance at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend
upcoming PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Members Committee and
Markets and Reliability Committee meetings, as well as other PJM
committee, subcommittee or task force meetings.\1\ The Commission and
Commission staff may attend the following meetings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, PJM subcommittees and task forces of the
standing committees (Operating, Planning and Market Implementation)
and senior standing committees (Members and Markets and Reliability)
meet on a variety of different topics; they convene and dissolve on
an as-needed basis. Therefore, the Commission and Commission staff
may monitor the various meetings posted on the PJM Web site.

PJM Members Committee

 April 27, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 May 15-17, 2017 (Chicago, IL)
 June 22, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 July 27, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 September 28, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 October 26, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 November 30, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)

PJM Markets and Reliability Committee

 April 27, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 May 25, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 June 22, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 July 27, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 August 24, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 September 28, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 October 26, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 November 30, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)
 December 21, 2017 (Wilmington, DE)

PJM Market Implementation Committee

 April 12, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 May 3, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 June 7, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 July 12, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 August 9, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 September 13, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 October 11, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 November 8, 2017 (Audubon, PA)
 December 13, 2017 (Audubon, PA)

    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in pending proceedings before the Commission,
including the following currently pending proceedings:

    Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER12-2708, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline,
LLC. et. al.
    Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL14-37, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER14-972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. ER14-1461, EL14-48, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. EL15-29, ER15-623, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, et al., v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL15-67, Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. EL15-73, ER16-372, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL15-79, TranSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL15-95, Maryland and Delaware State Commissions v. PJM

Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER15-1387, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. ER15-2562, ER15-2563, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. EL16-6, ER16-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL16-49, Calpine Corporation, et. al., v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. EL16-71, ER17-179, Monongahela Power Company, et. al.,
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
    Docket Nos. EL16-96, ER16-736, ER16-2401, PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER16-453, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and Northeast
Transmission Development, LLC
    Docket No. EL17-22, Independent Market Monitor for PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. v. American Electric Power Corporation
    Docket No. EL17-31, Northern Illinois Municipal Power Agency v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL17-32, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL17-36, Advanced Energy Management Alliance v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL17-37, American Municipal Power, Inc. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-211, Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC
    Docket Nos. ER17-214, ER17-216, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-217, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-335, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-367, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. ER17-718, ER17-729, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-725, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket Nos. ER17-753, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-775, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-905, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-934, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-950, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-1016, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-1057, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-1083, RC Cape May Holdings, LLC
    Docket No. ER17-1138, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-1236, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. ER17-1306, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    For additional meeting information, see: http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups.aspx and http://www.pjm.com/Calendar.aspx.
    The meetings are open to stakeholders. For more information,
contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 31, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06844 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P