[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36343-36348]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11643]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042; FRL-10009-54-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of a state implementation plan (SIP) submittal from the State
of Maryland. The submittal pertains to the basic program elements
referred to as infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). EPA is approving certain elements of the infrastructure SIP
submittal in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2308. Ms. Powers can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20070), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of portions of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The formal SIP revision (16-11) was
submitted by Maryland on August 17, 2016.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 17, 2016, Maryland, through the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) formally submitted a SIP revision to satisfy
certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP submittal addressed the
following infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As explained in the NPRM, EPA is
not taking action in this rulemaking related to Maryland's submittal
for the interstate transport requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is taking action on Maryland's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure submission related to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements in a separate rulemaking.
    The NPRM and the Technical Support Document (TSD) provided EPA's
review and rationale for proposing approval of portions of Maryland's
submittal and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042.

III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    One anonymous commenter provided comments in response to the May 8,
2019 proposed approval. EPA's responses to the comments are provided in
this document. The full text of the comment is in the docket for this
final rule.
    Comment 1: The commenter questions the validity of EPA's statement
in the TSD under CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) that Maryland maintains and
operates a network of ambient monitors throughout the State to measure
ambient air quality levels and to determine compliance with the NAAQS,
in light of the requirements under the Data Requirements Rule (DRR) for
SO2. The commenter believes that section 110(a)(2)(B) should
be disapproved until SO2 monitors are installed at Brandon
Shores, CP Crane, Chalk Point, Herbert Wagner, Luke Paper (Luke) and
Morgantown, and that the data should be captured and reported to EPA
and the public. The commenter also states that EPA has failed to take
the DRR into consideration in its determination that section
110(a)(2)(G) is approvable, despite its finding that Maryland has shown
under section 110(a)(2)(B) that it has the ability and authority to
perform SO2 air quality monitoring in accordance with EPA's
requirements. The commenter believes that installation of monitors at
the six sources in Maryland are required under the DRR so that ambient
SO2 levels near those sources can be evaluated for
comparison to significant harm levels for SO2, and that EPA
should not approve section 110(a)(2)(B) and (G) until Maryland installs
more SO2 monitors and reports the monitored data to EPA and
the public.
    Response 1: The commenter refers to the section 110(a)(2)(G)
requirement in the context of SO2 air quality monitoring and
the DRR. Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires that state implementation plans
have emergency authority comparable to that contained in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. In
the proposed rule for this action, the technical support document lays
out EPA's rationale for proposing approval of Maryland's submittal for
section 110(a)(2)(G). The SIP-approved Maryland regulations COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> establish criteria for addressing emergency
episodes of SO2 in the State. However, because the comment
pertains to air quality monitoring, EPA believes that the commenter
mistakenly cited to section 110(a)(2)(G) and instead meant to cite to
the monitoring requirements under section 110(a)(2)(F), which pertain
to the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of stationary source monitoring, periodic reports on
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of the reports with any emissions limitations or standards. The section
110(a)(2)(F) requirement is discussed later in this response. EPA
agrees that the six sources identified by the commenter were listed by
the State under the DRR requirements, 40 CFR part 51, subpart BB, for
characterization of SO2 emissions,1 2 but EPA
disagrees that the DRR requires installation of SO2 monitors
at all six of the sources. Under the DRR, states were required to
submit a list to EPA that identified all sources within the state
having SO2 emissions that exceeded a 2,000 tons per year
(tpy) annual threshold during the most recent year for which emissions
data for that source was available, plus any additional sources
identified by the air agency or by EPA as also warranting air quality
characterization. For each of the listed sources, a state was required
to indicate by July 1, 2016, whether air quality around the source
would be characterized through ambient monitoring or through air
quality modeling. See 40 CFR 51.1203(b). Alternatively, the state could
indicate that documentation would be provided by January 13, 2017, that
the listed source was subject to federally-enforceable and in effect
emission limit(s) below 2,000 tpy or a shutdown. If the state chose to
install new SO2 monitor(s), the state was required to
include information about the new monitors in the annual monitoring
network plan (AMNP) by July 1, 2016, and to ensure that the new
monitor(s) were operational by January 1, 2017. If the state chose to
model a source, the modeling protocol was required to be submitted by
July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated January 5, 2016 from Larry Hogan, Maryland
Governor to Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator recommending
sources in Maryland subject to the DRR, available in the docket for
this rulemaking action or at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/md.pdf.
    \2\ Letter dated March 16, 2016 from Shawn Garvin, Regional
Administrator to Benjamin H. Grumbles, Maryland Secretary, agreeing
with the Maryland recommendation, available in the docket for this
rulemaking action, or at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/md-response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2016, Maryland submitted a letter notifying EPA of the
State's selected methods for characterizing the SO2
emissions for the six sources named by the commenter.\3\ The letter
identified modeling as the method for characterizing five of the
sources, and monitoring for characterizing the Luke facility.\4\

Maryland's 2016 AMNP includes the following narrative of the chosen
option to characterize SO2 concentrations around each of
these sources, as follows: ``This final rule gives air agencies the
flexibility to characterize air quality using either modeling of actual
source emissions or using appropriately sited ambient air quality
monitors. At the time of this publication, all sources except Verso
Luke Mill are expected to model their emissions. Verso Luke Mill
submitted a draft monitoring plan to MDE in March 2016. When Verso Luke
Mill has submitted a complete package of material describing their
proposed monitoring plan, an addendum to this Network Plan will be
published and made available for a separate 30-day public comment
period. The same July 2016 submission deadline to EPA will apply to
this addendum.'' \5\ This language in the AMNP notes that the DRR
provides Maryland the flexibility to choose between modeling and
monitoring for each source subject to the requirements of the DRR,
which Maryland exercised in its decision to use air quality modeling to
characterize five sources' SO2 emissions and monitoring to
characterize Luke's SO2 emissions. The DRR does not mandate
installation of SO2 monitors at the sources Maryland chose
to characterize through air quality modeling. To meet the modeling
pathway for Chalk Point and Morgantown Generating Stations, Maryland
submitted a modeling analysis for the area surrounding each source on
December 19, 2016, prior to the January 13, 2017 submission date
required by the DRR. Before the modeling analysis was submitted to EPA,
a modeling protocol was developed to outline the procedures to follow
for the modeling analysis. To meet the monitoring pathway for Luke in
Allegany County, Maryland installed three monitors to characterize the
SO2 emissions around Luke, including one monitor in West
Virginia. The new monitors began operation on January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/maryland_source_characterization.pdf.
    \4\ Three of the listed sources (Brandon Shores, CP Crane, and
Herbert A. Wagner) that the State chose the modeling pathway for are
located in an area that EPA designated nonattainment under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in July 2016 after consideration of all
available modeling, including modeling submitted by the State. See
Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Round 2 (81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016). For the reasons explained in
this response regarding listed sources for which a state chose the
modeling pathway, EPA disagrees that the DRR required monitors to
characterize SO2 emissions around Brandon Shores, CP
Crane, and Herbert A. Wagner.
    \5\ The ``publication'' referred to is the AMNP as published in
the Maryland Register. The AMNP lists all six of the sources named
by the commenter, with Luke as the only source to be characterized
by monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the comment that section 110(a)(2)(B) and
110(a)(2)(F) should be disapproved because of a lack of SO2
monitors, which the commenter believes is required under the DRR. As
discussed above, the DRR provides states the option to either model or
monitor SO2 emissions around listed DRR sources, and
Maryland chose to model for certain sources. With this in mind, EPA
found that for SO2, Maryland's monitoring network is
sufficient under section 110(a)(2)(B) to monitor, compile and analyze
data on SO2 ambient data, and Maryland does provide
monitored or modeled data to EPA upon request. The TSD for the NPRM
provides EPA's analysis of how Maryland's submittal met the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(B) and 110(a)(2)(F). Maryland's
authority to monitor and analyze ambient air quality is found in
sections 2-103(b)(2) and 2-301(a)(1) of the Environment Article,
Annotated Code of Maryland. The ambient air quality standards,
definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement have been
approved into the SIP and are found under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. Regarding
the validity of Maryland's SO2 monitoring network under
110(a)(2)(B), EPA affirms that Maryland maintains and operates a
network of ambient SO2 monitors throughout the State meeting
the requirements of the DRR and other applicable requirements, to
measure ambient air quality levels and to determine compliance with the
NAAQS. As required by 40 CFR 58.10, Maryland submits an AMNP annually
to EPA that details any modifications to the sampling network. Maryland
also submits a periodic network assessment to EPA every five years to
determine if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in 40
CFR part 58, appendix D, and to determine whether (1) new sites are
needed, (2) existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated,
and (3) new technologies are appropriate for inclusion into the
network. As required by 40 CFR 51.320, Maryland submits all ambient air
quality data and associated quality assurance data for SO2
to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in accordance with the schedule
prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR 58.16. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 AMNP plans
are provided in the docket for this rulemaking.\6\ Therefore, the NPRM
proposed to determine that Maryland met the requirements under section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The 2016, 2017, and 2018 AMNP Plans were approved by EPA
November 10, 2016, November 17, 2017, and October 26, 2018,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding section 110(a)(2)(F), EPA finds that Maryland's SIP
contains authority meeting the requirements to require sources to
install, maintain and replace equipment necessary to monitor emissions
from sources, the requirements to provide for periodic reports on the
nature and amount of emissions from sources, and correlation of reports
to the standard. Section 2-103 and 2-301 of the Environment Article,
Annotated Code of Maryland, provides the authority for monitoring of
air emissions for sources in the State and for adopting regulations to
control air pollution, including testing, monitoring, record keeping,
and emissions reporting requirements. Under this authority, Maryland
has adopted, and EPA has approved into the Maryland SIP, provisions of
Code of Maryland (COMAR) 26.11--Air Quality that require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps by stationary sources for
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of emissions. This
SIP-approved requirement of COMAR 26.11 also establishes the authority
needed to require sources to provide for periodic reports on the nature
and amount of emissions from such sources. Also relevant to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) is section .04(B)(4) of Maryland
regulation COMAR 26.11.01--Testing and Monitoring, which requires that
all testing and monitoring reports submitted to MDE under this section
be available for public inspection, and Maryland makes the monitoring
data available to the public in real time at this site: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/index.aspx.
The TSD for the NPRM details EPA's analysis of Maryland's submission
related to section 110(a)(2)(B) and 110(a)(2)(F), and EPA's
determination that the Maryland's submittal meets the requirements for
these sections.
    Comment 2: The commenter stated that EPA should provide air quality
data to the public so the public does not have to guess when facilities
are polluting the air, and that monitoring network plans and
modifications to the plans should be made public as well. The commenter
also states that EPA should require monitoring network plans be made
available to the public for comment so the public can litigate based on
unbiased publicly available data.
    Response 2: The quality-assured, certified monitoring data
collected by the State is provided to the public. Maryland makes the
monitoring data available to the public in real time at this site:
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/index.aspx. After Maryland submits the certified monitoring data to
EPA, EPA reviews the data, then posts the emissions data to EPA's AQS.
The AQS air monitoring data can be found at this site: https://www.epa.gov/aqs. EPA posts monitoring data and

summary reports at this site: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
    Regarding public notice for the AMNP, EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 58, subpart B, require among other things that the state provide
the AMNP for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission
to EPA. 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1). Maryland did provide a 30-day public
comment period on the 2016 AMNP, therefore, the public does have an
opportunity to comment on Maryland's AMNP at the state level. The
monitors installed to characterize SO2 emissions around the
Luke facility are required to continue in operation to report ambient
data and may not be shut down unless the monitor meets specific
criteria under Sec.  51.1203(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 58. Under 40 CFR
58.10, AMNPs must go through Maryland's public process. Under 40 CFR
58.14, modifications to the SO2 monitoring network outside
of the AMNP require approval by the Regional Administrator of EPA.
    Comment 3: The commenter questions why EPA has not yet taken action
on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and also questions EPA's policy of
taking separate, later action on the portion of the Maryland submittal
related to this section. In particular, the commenter notes that EPA
has had the submittal since August 17, 2016, should have taken action
by now, and should not be delaying action for a later date. The
commenter notes that Maryland had until June 2, 2013 to submit this SIP
and that EPA had 18 months after that to take final action on these
SIPs, i.e. December 2, 2014. The commenter states that EPA must take
action on this section as soon as possible to prevent harmful air
pollution from negatively impacting neighboring states like Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and
Virginia. The commenter also states that this comment serves as a
notice of intent to sue on EPA's failure to act on this section of the
CAA within the statutory time frame.
    Response 3: EPA's approach to reviewing and taking action on
infrastructure SIPs is discussed in numerous past infrastructure
rulemaking actions.\7\ In these past actions, EPA explained an
ambiguity in section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure
SIPs pertaining to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure
SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act
upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1)
directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions
separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS.
If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the
infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such
submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. Therefore, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As an example, See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (80 FR 26461, May 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is discussed in the guidance issued on September 13, 2013
(2013 Infrastructure Guidance).\8\ The 2013 Infrastructure Guidance
explains that EPA has historically, when reviewing infrastructure SIP
submissions, operated on the basis that the elements and sub-elements
of section 110(a)(2) for a given NAAQS are, for the most part,
severable. EPA intends to continue its practice of acting on
infrastructure SIP elements together or separately, as appropriate,
including in this instance, where EPA is taking separate action on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Maryland's submittal.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ In a separate action on April 22, 2020 (85 FR 22381), EPA
proposed to disapprove the portion of Maryland's August 17, 2016
infrastructure SIP submittal for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related
to interstate transport of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA acknowledges that it has not met the statutory date for action
on this Maryland submittal. However, this action will discharge EPA's
statutory obligation related to section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the
CAA. With regard to this comment as a notice of intent to sue on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submittal, section 304(a) of
CAA sets forth the circumstances under which a citizen can sue under
the CAA. However, section 304(b) states that no action can be commenced
``prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action
to the Administrator.'' Section 304(b)(2) stipulates that such notice
``shall be given in such manner as the Administrator may prescribe by
regulation.'' The regulations at 40 CFR part 54 require that a notice
of intent to sue be served on the Administrator by certified mail. 40
CFR 54.2(a). Title 40 CFR 54.3 specifies the content of such notice and
requires, among other things, the full name and address of the person
giving notice. So, a citizen intending to file a notice of intent to
sue on EPA's mandatory duty to act on any portion of the Maryland
submittal is required to do so via certified mail directly to
Administrator, which would also need to meet the other requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 54. EPA, therefore, does not consider this
comment as meeting the requirements for notice of a mandatory duty
suit.
    Comment 4: The commenter questions EPA's proposed approval of
section 110(a)(2)(E) based on Maryland's staff of 43 people, and that
EPA needs to clarify whether these 43 individuals are working on only
the SO2 SIP or if they also have other work
responsibilities. The commenter believes that EPA should show that
these 43 people are able to handle all their assigned duties. The
commenter also questions EPA's determination that MDE has adequate
funding without an analysis of MDE's revenue and expenses and believes
that EPA should perform a financial audit of MDE to ensure the State
has adequate funding to perform their obligations under the CAA.
    Response 4: As stated in the TSD for the NPRM, EPA's evaluation
indicates that the State of Maryland has the staffing and funding
resources to meet SIP obligations under section 110(a)(2)(E).
Maryland's budget and staff level has been consistent over the past
number of years and over these years, Maryland has been able to meet
its statutory commitments, including submission of required air quality
data and annual monitoring network plans. Maryland has an EPA-approved
fee program under CAA title V which is used to support title V program
elements such as permitting, monitoring, testing, inspections, and
enforcement. EPA conducts periodic title V fee and program audits in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Maryland regulation COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> provides fee schedules and other
relevant fee information regarding title V permits and state permits to
operate. Additionally, MDE receives grant funding annually from EPA
through CAA section 105 to assist the State with the costs of
implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution
or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards. The CAA section 105 grant funding MDE receives
goes through an evaluation process under the requirements of 40 CFR
part 35, subpart A, which call for the State and EPA to jointly
evaluate and report progress and accomplishments under the work plan.
Maryland also has various permit programs that are self-funded as they
apply fees for permit applications. Most of these permit program fees
can be adjusted if the State determines that the fee does not cover the
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon the permit applications.
    In addition to the EPA programs through which funding is received,
MDE's infrastructure SIP submission identifies the organizations that
participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the EPA-approved
SIP provisions related to a new or revised NAAQS and the associated
resources. Maryland's Environmental Trust Fund, administered by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), provides Maryland with
annual funding that is used by the State to conduct air quality
modeling, and also funds the Maryland Power Plan Research Program.
Also, the Public Service Commission (PSC) collects application fees
from power plants to fund its regulatory program. Based on a review of
the existing resources, EPA has concluded that Maryland has met the
funding requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) and has adequate personnel
to implement the SIP.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's August 17, 2016 infrastructure SIP
submission which addresses the basic program elements, or portions
thereof, specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA,
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA is approving Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for these elements. As noted previously, EPA
is taking separate action on the portion of the MDE submittal related
to transport i.e., section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Maryland's submittal did
not address section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), which
pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of the
CAA. States are required to submit those nonattainment area
requirements under a different timeline as statutorily required under
part D of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 17, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving portions of Maryland's infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 26, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable           State
            revision               geographic area   submittal date   EPA approval date   Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........        08/17/16  6/16/20, [insert    Sec.   52.1070 is
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          Federal Register    amended. This action
 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.                                              citation].          addresses the
                                                                                following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(i)(II),
                                                                                D(ii), (E), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                and (M). This action
                                                                                does not address CAA
                                                                                sections
                                                                                110(a)(D)(i)(I) and
                                                                                110(a)(2)(I), nor does
                                                                                it address the portion
                                                                                of section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) related
                                                                                to NNSR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-11643 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68692-68697]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21934]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98585; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule To Establish an Options Regulatory Fee

September 28, 2023.
    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 September 27, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c) to adopt
an Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') that would automatically sunset on
September 30, 2024. The Exchange proposes to implement the changes to
the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal on September 27, 2023. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    In preparation for the launch of the Exchange's options market
(``MEMX Options''),\4\ the Exchange proposes to establish an ORF in the
amount of $0.0015 per contract side. The amount of the proposed fee is
based on historical industry volume, projected volumes on the Exchange,
and projected Exchange regulatory costs. The Exchange's proposed ORF
should balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the
anticipated regulatory costs. As discussed more fully below, the
Exchange proposes that the ORF will automatically sunset on September
30, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On August 8, 2022, the Commission approved SR-MEMX-2022-10,
which proposed rules for the trading of options on the Exchange. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95445 (August 8, 2022), 87 FR
49894 (August 12, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-010). The Exchange plans to
launch MEMX Options in September of 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The per-contract ORF will be collected by the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') on behalf of the Exchange for each options
transaction, cleared or ultimately cleared by an Exchange member in the
``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs. The ORF is collected from either: (1) a Member that was the
ultimate clearing firm \5\ for the transaction; or (2) a non-Member
that was the ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the executing
clearing firm \6\ for the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange takes into account any CMTA transfers when
determining the ultimate clearing firm for a transaction. CMTA or
Clearing Member Trade Assignment is a form of ``give up'' whereby
the position will be assigned to a specific clearing firm at the
OCC.
    \6\ Throughout this filing, ``executing clearing firm'' means
the clearing firm through which the entering broker indicated that
the transaction would be cleared at the time it entered the original
order which executed, and that clearing firm could be a designated
``give up'', if applicable. The executing clearing firm may be the
ultimate clearing firm if no CMTA transfer occurs. If a CMTA
transfer occurs, however, the ultimate clearing firm would be the
clearing firm that the position was transferred to for clearing via
CMTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate how the ORF will be assessed and collected, the
Exchange provides the following set of examples.
    1. For all transactions executed on the Exchange, if the ultimate
clearing firm is a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to and
collected from that Member. If the ultimate clearing firm is not a
Member of the Exchange, the ORF is collected from that non-Member
clearing firm but assessed to the executing clearing firm.
    2. If the transaction is executed on an away exchange, the ORF is
only assessed and collected if either the executing clearing firm or
ultimate clearing firm are Members of the Exchange. If the ultimate
clearing firm is a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to and
collected from that ultimate clearing firm. If the ultimate clearing
firm is not a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to the
executing clearing firm (again, only if that executing clearing firm is
a Member of the Exchange), and collected from the ultimate clearing
firm. Thus, to reiterate, if neither the executing clearing firm nor
the ultimate clearing firm are members of the Exchange, no ORF is
assessed or collected.
    Finally, the Exchange will not assess the ORF on outbound linkage
trades. ``Linkage trades'' are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the
Exchange can distinguish them from other trades. A customer order
routed to another exchange results in the appearance of two customer
trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the recipient
exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-

billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not
assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To clarify, as stated previously, the Exchange will assess
and collect the ORF for each customer options transaction that is
cleared by a Member of the Exchange, regardless of where the
transaction occurs. As such, transactions may fall into this
category that originated from customer orders entered on the
Exchange that were routed to and executed on an away market pursuant
to the Options Linkage Plan. However, the Exchange will not assess
the ORF in this instance on the original entering broker on MEMX
Options, which would result in a potential double billing. Instead,
the Exchange will only assess and collect from the ultimate clearing
firm, and only if the ultimate clearing firm or the executing
clearing firm is a MEMX Options Member (because the transaction
ultimately occurs on an away market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the
ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information
necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction.
There are countless order entering market participants, and each day
such participants can drop their connection to one market center and
establish themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it
is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such
as an ORF, on order entering participants on away markets on a given
trading day.
    Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order entering
participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on
information the Exchange receives from the OCC regardless of the
identity of the order entering participant, their location, and the
market center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the
Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation of the
Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF from
clearing members. Additionally, this collection method was originally
instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that desired to have the
ORF be collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the
transaction.
    As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC.
The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with
respect to a Member's activities support applying the ORF to
transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's
regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member
enters an order that executes or clears a transaction executed on its
behalf. The Exchange will regularly review all such activities,
including performing surveillance for position limit violations, end of
day and intra-day manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice
violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple
exchanges.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer
options business, including performing routine surveillances and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated
from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory
fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the
Exchange's regulatory costs. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory
expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of
the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and
third- party service provider costs to support the day-to-day
regulatory work such as surveillance, investigations and examinations.
The indirect expenses include support from personnel in such areas as
human resources, legal, information technology, facilities and
accounting as well as shared costs necessary to operate the Exchange
and to carry out its regulatory function, such as hardware, data center
costs and connectivity. The Exchange acknowledges that these indirect
expenses are also allocated towards other business operations, such as
providing connectivity and market data services, for which the Exchange
has also conducted a cost-based analysis. As such, when analyzing the
indirect expenses associated with its regulatory program, the Exchange
did not double-count any expenses, but instead, allocated a portion of
the cost not already allocated to other fees imposed by the Exchange.
Indirect expenses are anticipated to be approximately 24% of the total
regulatory costs for 2023 and 2024. Thus, direct expenses are
anticipated to be approximately 76% of the total regulatory costs for
2023 and 2024. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities
with respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules
have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover
the cost of options sales practice regulation. Finally, the Exchange
notes that it takes into account all regulatory sources of funding,
including fines collected by the Exchange in connection with
disciplinary matters, when determining the appropriate ORF rate.
    The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the
ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. More
specifically, the Exchange will ensure that revenue generated from ORF
not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. The Exchange
will monitor regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-
annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or
are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs,
the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to
the Commission. Going forward, the Exchange will notify Members of
adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular at least 30 calendar
days prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the
Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the
exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory
obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated
persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for
other manipulative conduct by market participants trading on the
Exchange. The Exchange will not be able to effectively surveil for such
conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options
markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require
the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options
markets, such as surveillance for position limit violations, end of day
and intra-day manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice
violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity
relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and
collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to
information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that
occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on
its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange
receives from the OCC, including for away market activity. Among other
reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that
occurs away from the Exchange but which may relate to activity
occurring on the Exchange. Without reviewing activity on a market-wide
basis, the Exchange would not be able to effectively identify
potentially problematic cross-market activity, with a portion occurring
on other options

exchanges and a portion on the Exchange. Again, the Exchange reiterates
that it will not collect the ORF on executions that occur on away
markets that are cleared by non-Members, except for the limited
scenario where a Member clears a transaction and ultimately ``gives-
up'' the trade to a non-Member via CMTA.\8\ The Exchange believes that
assessing the ORF on Member clearing firms equitably distributes the
collection of the ORF in a fair and reasonable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ To reiterate, in this instance, the ORF would be collected
from the non-Member ultimate CMTA clearing firm but assessed to the
Member executing clearing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange will
work with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related
issues in connection with its regulatory program for options.
Specifically, the Exchange and other options exchanges are required to
populate a consolidated options audit trail (``COATS'') \9\ system in
order to surveil a Member's activities across markets. Further, through
its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG''),\10\
the Exchange will share information and coordinate inquiries and
investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential
intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange's
participation in ISG helps it to satisfy the requirement that it has
coordinated surveillance with markets on which security futures are
traded and markets on which any security underlying security futures
are traded to detect manipulation and insider trading.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ COATS effectively enhances intermarket options surveillance
by enabling the options exchanges to reconstruct the market promptly
to effectively surveil certain rules.
    \10\ ISG is an industry organization formed in 1983 to
coordinate intermarket surveillance among the SROs by co-operatively
sharing regulatory information pursuant to a written agreement
between the parties. The goal of the ISG's information sharing is to
coordinate regulatory efforts to address potential intermarket
trading abuses and manipulations.
    \11\ See Section 6(h)(3)(I) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will
avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to
avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for
regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a
Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated
exchange (to the extent permissible under the Options Linkage plan,
which, among other requirements, prohibits trading through of better
priced quotations). Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their
member's [sic] activity, and their fees will extend to include the
activities of their own members on the Exchange. In other words, upon
launch of the Exchange, other exchanges will charge the ORF for
executions occurring on MEMX Options cleared by their customers.\12\ In
fact, all sixteen (16) registered options exchanges currently impose
ORF on their members, and, similar to the Exchange, the majority of the
options exchanges launched over the last decade have implemented an ORF
on the day of launch or shortly thereafter in order to properly fund
their regulatory programs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58817 (October 20,
2008), 73 FR 63744 (October 27, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-05) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'')
adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across all options
exchanges); 61133 (December 9, 2009), 74 FR 66715 (December 16,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-100) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') adopting an ORF
applicable to transactions across all options exchanges); 61154
(December 11, 2009), 74 FR 67278 (December 18, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-
105) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of Nasdaq ISE,
LLC (``ISE'') adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across all
options exchanges); 61388 (January 20, 2010), 75 FR 4431 (January
27, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-001) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of Nasdaq OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') adopting an ORF
applicable to transactions across all options exchanges); 70200
(August 14, 2013) 78 FR 51242 (August 20, 2013) (SR-Topaz-2013-01))
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``GEMX''), formerly known as ISE Gemini and Topaz Exchange,
adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across all options
exchanges); 64400 (May 4, 2011), 76 FR 27118 (May 10, 2011) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-27) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE AMEX'') adopting an ORF applicable to
transactions across all options exchanges); 64399 (May 4, 2011), 76
FR 27114 (May 10, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-20) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') adopting
an ORF applicable to transactions across all options exchanges);
65913 (December 8, 2011), 76 FR 77883 (December 14, 2011) (SR-
NASDAQ-2011-163) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM'') adopting an ORF applicable to
transactions across all options exchanges); 66979 (May 14, 2012), 77
FR 29740 (May 18, 2012) (SR-BOX-2012-002) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'')
adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across all options
exchanges); 67596 (August 6, 2012), 77 FR 47902 (August 10, 2012)
(SR-C2-2012-023) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of C2
Options Exchange, Inc. (``C2'') adopting an ORF applicable to
transactions across all options exchanges); 68711 (January 23, 2013)
78 FR 6155 (January 29, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-01) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness of Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') adopting an ORF applicable to transactions
across all options exchanges); 74214 (February 5, 2015), 80 FR 7665
(February 11, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-08) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'')
formerly known as BATS, adopting an ORF applicable to transactions
across all options exchanges); 80025 (February 13, 2017) 82 FR 11081
(February 17, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-04) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'')
formerly known as Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., adopting an ORF
applicable to transactions across all options exchanges); 80875
(June 7, 2017) 82 FR 27096 (June 13, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-26)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of MIAX Pearl, LLC
(``MIAX Pearl'') adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across
all options exchanges); 85127 (February 13, 2019) 84 FR 5173
(February 20, 2019) (SR-MRX-2019-03) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'') adopting an ORF
applicable to transactions across all options exchanges); 85251
(March 6, 2019) 84 FR 8931 (March 12, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-01)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of MIAX Emerald LLC
(``MIAX Emerald'') adopting an ORF applicable to transactions across
all options exchanges).
    \13\ MIAX Options--effective 1/2/13, launch 12/7/12; ISE Topaz--
effective 8/5/13, launch same; MIAX Pearl--effective 2/6/17, launch
same; MIAX Emerald--effective 3/1/19, launch same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO
charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee
\14\ and the ORF assessed by other options exchanges including, but not
limited to, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, Cboe, BZX, EDGX, Phlx, Nasdaq ISE,
Nasdaq GEMX, MIAX and BOX.\15\ While the Exchange does not have all the
same regulatory responsibilities as FINRA, the Exchange believes that,
like other exchanges that have adopted an ORF, its broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities, irrespective of
where their transactions take place, supports a regulatory fee
applicable to transactions on other markets. Unlike FINRA's Trading
Activity Fee, the ORF would apply only to a Member's customer options
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47946 (May 30,
2003), 68 FR 34021 (June 6, 2003) (SR-NASD-2002-148).
    \15\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule
that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually.
In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the Commission as
required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the Exchange will
notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any anticipated change
in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the
effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing
guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would
make it easier for participants to ensure their systems are configured
to properly account for the ORF.
    Lastly, the Exchange recognizes that in 2019, the Commission issued
suspensions of and orders instituting proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change to modify the Options

Regulatory Fee of NYSE American, NYSE Arca, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX
Emerald, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, and C2.\16\ Each of those exchanges
had filed to increase their ORF, and the Commission indicated that each
of those filings lacked detail and specificity, signaling that more
information was needed to speak to whether the proposed increased ORFs
were reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory,
particularly given that the ORF is assessed on transactions that clear
in the ``customer'' range and regardless of the exchange on which the
transaction occurs. The Commission also noted that the filings provided
only broad general statements regarding options transaction volume and
did not provide any information on those exchanges' historic or
projected options regulatory costs (including the costs of regulating
activity that cleared in the ``customer'' range and the costs of
regulating activity that occurred off exchange), the amount of
regulatory revenue they had generated and expected to generate from the
ORF as well as other sources, or the ``material portion'' of options
regulatory expenses that they sought to recover from the ORF. Each of
those exchanges withdrew their filings, but continue charging ORF today
as discussed above. Since that time, MEMX Options is the first new
options exchange to launch, and as such, would be at an unfair
competitive disadvantage if it were not allowed to charge the ORF to
recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory
costs for the supervision and regulation of activity of its Members
which as noted above, is charged by all 16 currently operating options
exchanges. Given that the Exchange is not in possession of the data it
would require in order to provide the information the SEC requested in
its orders instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove proposed rule changes to modify the Options Regulatory Fee
of other options exchanges,\17\ the Exchange believes it appropriate to
revisit its ORF once it has the actual data and experience that will be
available upon operating the Exchange and its regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87168 (September
30, 2019), 84 FR 53210 (October 4, 2019) (SR-Emerald-2019-29);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87167 (September 30, 2019), 84
FR 53189 (October 4, 2019) (SR-PEARL-2019-23); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 87169 (September 30, 2019), 84 FR 53195 (October 4,
2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-35); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87170
(September 30, 2019), 84 FR 53213 (October 4, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-
040); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87172 (September 30, 2019)
84 FR 53192 (October 4, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-051); Securities
Exchange Act Release No 87171 (September 30, 2019), 84 FR 53200
(October 4, 2019) (SR-C2-2019-018); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 86832 (August 30, 2019), 84 FR 46980 (September 6, 2019) (SR-
NYSEArca-2019-49); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86833 (August
30, 2019) 84 FR 47029 (September 6, 2019) (SR-NYSEAMER-2019-27).
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, the Exchange proposes that the ORF proposed herein will
automatically sunset on September 30, 2024, approximately one year
after the operative date. The Exchange believes this will allow it the
time to gather the necessary data, including its actual regulatory
costs and revenues, as well as the cost of regulating executions that
clear in a customer capacity and executions that occur on away markets,
while also allowing it to adequately cover a portion of the projected
costs associated with the regulation of its Members. Such a process
will inform the Exchange's approach to the ORF after the sunset date.
To reiterate, as a new exchange, not having the opportunity to fund its
regulatory program through the same regulatory fee charged by every
other options exchange would place an undue competitive disadvantage
upon the Exchange's regulatory program and options business as a whole.
Further, the Exchange emphasizes that other exchanges will be charging
ORF for transactions occurring on MEMX Options, and as such, it follows
that the Exchange that is primarily responsible for monitoring those
transactions should also be able to charge the ORF for activity
occurring on its own market, as well as transactions it surveils on
away markets. In particular, by adopting a one-year sunset to its
proposed ORF, the Exchange will be the only options exchange (of
seventeen) that will be required to demonstrate to the Commission that
the existing fee is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory in the next year. Absent rulemaking by the Commission,
all other sixteen (16) options exchanges will be able to continue
charging ORF as they do today, and as they have for years.
    The Exchange is proposing to establish an ORF in the amount of
$0.0015 per contract side, to be operative on September 27, 2023, which
is the date the Exchange's options platforms is scheduled to launch,
and that will automatically sunset on September 30, 2024. The amount of
the proposed fee is based on historical industry volume, projected
volumes on the Exchange, and projected Exchange regulatory costs. As
noted above, the Exchange will continually gather relevant data
throughout the sunset period and review its ORF to ensure that the ORF,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that this proposal will
permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of its regulatory
costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs, and gather the necessary
data to provide the Commission evidence to inform its approach to the
ORF after the sunset period.
    The Exchange notified current and future Members via a Regulatory
Circular of the proposed ORF at least 30 calendar days prior to the
proposed operative date, on August 1, 2023.\18\ The Exchange believes
that the prior notification to future market participants will ensure
that the future market participants are prepared to configure their
systems to properly account for the proposed ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See MEMX Options Regulatory Notice 23-07, https://info.memxtrading.com/regulatory-notice-23-07-memx-options-options-regulatory-fee/, MEMX Options Regulatory Notice 23-10, https://info.memxtrading.com/regulatory-notice-23-10-options-regulatory-fee-effective-date/, and MEMX Options Regulatory Notice 23-15, https://info.memxtrading.com/regulatory-notice-23-15-options-regulatory-fee-effective-date/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \20\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \21\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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 is not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that establishing an ORF in the amount of
$0.0015 is reasonable because the Exchange's collection of ORF needs to
be balanced against the amount of projected regulatory costs incurred
by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the amount proposed herein
will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the
anticipated regulatory costs. Moreover, the proposed amount is lower
than the

amount of ORF assessed on other exchanges.\22\ The Exchange notes that
while certain options exchanges do charge a lower ORF than that
proposed by the Exchange, each of these options exchanges is part of an
exchange ``group'' (i.e., affiliated with other options exchanges). In
turn, each of these exchange groups charges more than two (2) to five
(5) times the amount of ORF as a group when compared to the Exchange's
proposed ORF rate.\23\ While the Exchange understands and agrees that
each additional options exchange is its own legal entity with
regulatory obligations under the Act to regulate its members, the
Exchange also believes that there is significant scale that can be
achieved for an exchange group that operates multiple exchanges,
including with respect to regulation, and that it is this scale that
allows such options exchanges to operate with such a low assessment of
ORF. In other words, the initial fixed costs associated with
implementing an exchange group's options regulatory program are
scalable as additional options exchanges are launched by that exchange
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') and NYSE American Options Fees Schedule,
Section VII(A), which provide that ORF is assessed at a rate of
$0.0055 per contract for each respective exchange. See also Nasdaq
PHLX, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 6(D), which provides for
an ORF rate of $0.0034 per contract, Cboe Options Fee Schedule,
which provides an ORF rate of $0.0030 per contract, Nasdaq Options
Market, Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 5, which provides an ORF
rate of $0.0016 per contract, BOX Options Fee Schedule Section
II(C), which provides an ORF rate of $0.00295 per contract, MIAX
Options Fee Schedule, Section 2(b), which provides an ORF rate of
$0.0019 per contract, MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 2(b), which
provides an ORF rate of $0.0018 per contract.
    \23\ Each of MIAX Emerald, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2 Options,
Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq ISE Gemini, Nasdaq ISE and Nasdaq BX
Options charges a lower rate than $0.0015 per contract, which is the
rate proposed by the Exchange. However, the Cboe exchanges,
comprised of four options exchanges, charges an aggregate ORF rate
of $0.0034 per contract (over 2 times the Exchange's proposed rate),
the MIAX exchanges, comprised of three options exchanges, charges an
aggregate ORF rate of $0.0043 per contract (nearly 3 times the
Exchange's proposed rate); and the Nasdaq exchanges, comprised of
six options exchanges, charges an aggregate ORF rate of $0.0084 per
contract (nearly 6 times the Exchange's proposed rate). The Exchange
notes that the NYSE exchanges, comprised of two options exchanges,
charges an aggregate ORF rate of $0.011 per contract (over 7 times
the Exchange's proposed rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members
in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that
clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF
ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly
based on the amount of customer options business they conduct.
Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and
requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than
regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more
automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated
with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall
regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with
administering the non- customer component (e.g., Member proprietary
transactions) of its regulatory program. Again, the Exchange intends to
quantify the amount of time and resources spent on customer trading
activity during the sunset period.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of
supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including
performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy,
rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will
monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed
the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than 75% of the
Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Exchange's
by-laws that state in Section 17.4(b): ``[a]ny Regulatory Funds shall
not be used for non-regulatory purposes or distributed, advanced or
allocated to any Company Member, but rather, shall be applied to fund
regulatory operations of the Company (including surveillance and
enforcement activities). . .'' \24\. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that the amount of the fee is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See MEMX LLC--LLC Agreement at https://info.memxtrading.com/regulation/governance/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to limit changes to the ORF
to twice a year with advance notice is reasonable because it will give
participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better
enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers.
The Exchange believes that limiting changes to the ORF to twice a year
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in
the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide
them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to collect the ORF from
non-Members when such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction
(that is, when the non-Member is the ``ultimate clearing firm'' for a
transaction in which a Member was assessed the ORF), is an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange notes that there is a material distinction between
``assessing'' the ORF and ``collecting'' the ORF. The Exchange does not
assess the ORF to non-Members in any instance. For all executions,
regardless of where they occur, the ORF is collected from the ultimate
clearing firm, regardless of whether that clearing firm is a Member,
but only if the original executing clearing firm is a Member. If the
original executing clearing firm is a not a Member, no ORF is assessed
or collected. If the original executing clearing firm is a Member,
while the ORF may be collected from the ultimate non-Member clearing
firm, the ORF is assessed to the Member executing clearing firm. The
Exchange believes that this collection practice is reasonable and
appropriate, given its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect
to its Members activity, as well as the fact that this collection
method was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that
desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that
ultimately clears the transaction.
    The Exchange believes that implementing the proposed ORF with a
sunset date of approximately one year after the operative date is
reasonable because it will give the Exchange adequate time to collect
and analyze pertinent data while ensuring the Exchange, as a new
entrant into equity options trading, is able to adequately fund its
regulatory program to the same extent as its competitors. As noted
above, by adopting a one-year sunset to its proposed ORF, the Exchange
will be the only options exchange (of seventeen) that will be required
to demonstrate to the Commission that the existing fee is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory in the next year.
Absent rulemaking by the Commission, all other sixteen (16) options
exchanges will be able to continue charging ORF as they do today, and
as they have for years. Further, the Exchange emphasizes that other
exchanges will be charging ORF for transactions occurring on MEMX
Options, and as such, it follows that the Exchange that is primarily
responsible for monitoring those

transactions should also be able to charge the ORF for activity
occurring on its own market, as well as transactions it surveils on
away markets.
    The Exchange believes that implementing the ORF with the sunset
provision is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and
the Exchange will provide such Members with advance notice of any
changes to the ORF imposed by the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal will not create
an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition
because the ORF will apply to all customer activity, and is designed to
enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's
cost related to its regulatory activities. This proposal will not
create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on
competition because it will be a regulatory fee that supports
regulation and customer protection in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of
regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
Unilateral action by the Exchange in establishing fees for services
provided to its Members and others using its facilities will not have
an impact on competition. The Exchange's proposed ORF, as described
herein, is lower than or comparable to fees charged by other options
exchanges (though as noted above, some exchange groups do have options
exchanges operating with a lower ORF on a standalone basis). The
proposal to limit the changes to the ORF to twice a year with advance
notice is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to
provide Members with better notice of any change that the Exchange may
make to the ORF.
    The Exchange notes that while it does not believe that its proposed
ORF will impose any burden on inter-market competition, the Exchange
not charging an ORF or being precluded from charging an ORF would, in-
fact, represent a significant burden on competition. As noted above,
the Exchange is a new entrant in the highly competitive environment for
equity options trading. As also noted above, all sixteen (16)
registered options exchanges currently impose ORF on their members,
and, similar to the Exchange, the majority of the options exchanges
launched over the last decade have implemented an ORF on the day of
launch or shortly thereafter.\25\ Upon the launch of the Exchange, such
ORF fees imposed by other options exchanges will extend to executions
occurring on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that in order to
compete with these existing options exchanges, it must, in fact, impose
an ORF on its Members, and that the inability to do so would result in
an unfair competitive disadvantage to the Exchange. Given the
Commission's questions, as articulated in various orders instituting
proceedings, the Exchange has proposed its ORF with a sunset that will
allow the Exchange the time to gather the necessary data, including its
actual regulatory costs and revenues, as well as the cost of
regulations executions that clear in the customer capacity and
executions that occur on away markets, while also allowing it to
adequately cover a portion of the projected costs associated with the
regulation of its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra, note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)(ii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \27\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-25 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-MEMX-2023-25. 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 (https://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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-25 and should be
submitted on or before October 25, 2023

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21934 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57891]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2858-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Ball Hill Wind
Energy, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Ball Hill Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 6, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 16, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20526 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41118-41119]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC22-84-000.
    Applicants: Clearway Energy Group LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Clearway Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220701-5436.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2606-015; ER17-815-004.
    Applicants: Verso Escanaba LLC, Consolidated Water Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of
Consolidated Water Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-520-013; ER10-2605-017; ER10-2984-058; ER12-
1626-014; ER13-521-013; ER13-1266-040; ER13-1267-013; ER13-1268-013;
ER13-1269-013; ER13-1270-013; ER13-1271-013; ER13-1272-013; ER13-1273-
013; ER13-1441-013; ER13-1442-013; ER15-2211-038; ER22-1385-001.
    Applicants: BHER Market Operations, LLC., MidAmerican Energy
Services, LLC, Solar Star California XX, LLC, Solar Star California
XIX, LLC, Vulcan/BN Geothermal Power Company, Salton Sea Power L.L.C.,
Salton Sea Power Generation Company, Fish Lake Power LLC, Elmore
Company, Del Ranch Company, CE Leathers Company,

CalEnergy, LLC, Pinyon Pines Wind II, LLC, Topaz Solar Farms LLC,
Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., Yuma Cogeneration Associates, Pinyon
Pines Wind I, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region
of Pinyon Pines Wind I, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220629-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2666-006; ER15-1218-013; ER16-38-011; ER16-39-
010; ER16-2501-007; ER16-2502-007; ER17-157-006; ER17-2341-008; ER17-
2453-007; ER18-713-006; ER18-1775-005; ER20-2888-005.
    Applicants: Townsite Solar, LLC,64KT 8me LLC, CA Flats Solar 150,
LLC, Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC, CA Flats Solar 130, LLC, Moapa
Southern Paiute Solar, LLC, Tropico, LLC, Nicolis, LLC, Kingbird Solar
B, LLC, Kingbird Solar A, LLC, Solar Star California XIII, LLC, Avalon
Solar Partners, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region
of Avalon Solar Partners, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220630-5362.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2471-005.
    Applicants: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: NedPower Mount Storm LLC submits
tariff filing per 35: Informational Filing Regarding Transfer of
Ownership to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-547-006; ER12-1911-005; ER12-1912-005; ER12-
1913-005; ER12-1915-005; ER12-1916-005; ER12-1917-005; ER14-41-007;
ER14-42-007; ER16-498-006; ER16-499-006; ER16-500-006; ER20-2448-002;
ER21-133-002; ER21-736-003; ER21-1962-003; ER21-2634-001.
    Applicants: Solar Star Lost Hills, LLC, Mulberry BESS LLC, RE Slate
1 LLC, HDSI, LLC, American Kings Solar, LLC, RE Mustang 4 LLC, RE
Mustang 3 LLC, RE Mustang LLC, RE Rosamond Two LLC, RE Rosamond One
LLC, RE McKenzie 6 LLC, RE McKenzie 5 LLC, RE McKenzie 4 LLC, RE
McKenzie 3 LLC, RE McKenzie 2 LLC, RE McKenzie 1 LLC, Goldman Sachs
Renewable Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwest Region
of Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Marketing LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/29/22.
    Accession Number: 20220629-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-507-001.
    Applicants: Pinnacle Wind, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Change in Ownership to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-944-002.
    Applicants: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Change in Ownership to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1991-001.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Correction Filing ER22-1991 to be
effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2281-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1148R32 American Electric
Power NITSA and NOAs to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220701-5389.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2282-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1276R26 Evergy Metro NITSA
NOA to be effective 7/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220701-5401.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2283-000.
    Applicants: Black Bear Alabama Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Application with Expedited & Confidential Treatment to be effective 7/
31/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2284-000.
    Applicants: Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff
Application with Expedited & Confidential Treatment to be effective 7/
31/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2285-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Original
WMPA SA No. 5668; Queue No. AE2-079 to be effective 8/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2286-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Original
WMPA SA No. 5667; Queue No. AE2-078 to be effective 8/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220705-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES22-51-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Ameren Services Company.
    Filed Date: 6/30/22.
    Accession Number: 20220630-5366.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/22.

    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: July 5, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14690 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P