SAMPLE 114 LETTER for Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2006 Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to request your cooperation in determining the amount of chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs) needed to manufacture metered dose inhalers ( MDIs) in the United States in the year 2006. Each year since the phase out of class I ozone depleting substances in 1996, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has asked the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to approve production and import of specified quantities of CFCs for use in MDIs. Once the Parties have approved the requested quantities, EPA then allocates rights to import or produce CFCs as " essential use allowances" to each company through rulemaking for that year. EPA, in allocating the rights to import or produce CFCs, implements the exception for " medical devices" at section 604( d)( 2) of the Clean Air Act ( the Act). This section requires that the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), in consultation with EPA, determine the amount of CFCs " necessary" for medical devices. EPA then allocates essential use allowances to companies in accordance with this determination.

With this letter, EPA requests that [ company name] provide information on the amount of CFCs necessary for the year 2006 by completing the enclosed form. The information you provide will be shared with FDA, and will assist FDA in consultation with EPA in determining the amount of CFCs necessary for your company in the year 2006. Please note that FDA will compare the data you provide in response to this letter to data submitted to FDA in annual reports, where available.

Pursuant to section 114( a) of the Act, for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the Act, the Administrator of EPA is authorized to require any person who is subject to any requirement of the Act to establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require. Therefore, in accordance with section 114( a)( 1) of the Act, you are hereby required to provide the information requested in the enclosed form. You are required to submit the completed reporting forms within twenty ( 20) business days from the date of receipt of this letter. An original signed copy of the reporting forms should be submitted to:

Scott Monroe Stratospheric Protection Division ( 6205J) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W. Washington, DC 20460.

If sending by express mail or delivery service, please use the following address:

Scott Monroe Stratospheric Protection Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 4113.

Pursuant to the regulations at 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B, you are entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim covering all or any part of the submitted business information as defined in 40 CFR 2.201( c). Asserting a business confidentiality claim does not relieve your obligation to respond fully to this letter. Failure to assert such a claim makes the submitted information subject to public disclosure upon request and without further notice to you pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. section 552. Information subject to a business confidentiality claim may be available to the public only to the extent set forth in the above cited regulation.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Scott Monroe by phone at ( 202) 343 9712 or by email at monroe. scott@ epa. gov.

Sincerely,

Drusilla Hufford, Director Stratospheric Protection Division Enclosure 1 If significant numbers of different canister sizes are produced, this target fill number should either be the weighted average for that product ( i. e., the sum of the gross target fill times the percentage of canisters produced in that size divided by the total number of canisters) or each size may be contained in a separate row of the report 2 Column F= ( Column D)( Column E)

3 Provide details regarding your additional amount needed, e. g., canisters produced but not distributed, CFCs lost in processing, CFCs remaining at end of batch run, CFCs used in line cleaning.

4 Total request per product for 2005 ( metric tons) = Column F+ Column G Year 2005 Essential Use Allocation: CFC Reporting Form Company Name______________________________

A B C D E F G H Product Number of Units produced from 1/ 1/ 03to 12/ 31/ 03 Number of Units anticipated to be produced in 2004 Number of Units anticipated to be produced in 2005 Gross Target fill weight per unit ( grams) 1 Total CFC to be contained in product for 2005 ( metric tons) 2 Additional amount necessary for production ( metric tons) 3 TOTAL request per product for 2005 ( metric tons) 4 Example Product 1,327,456 1,300,000 1,200,000 22 26.40 2.60 29.00


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21985-21992]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08613]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69345; File No. SR-C2-2013-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, Relating to the Regulation NMS Plan To Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility

April 8, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 7, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify its rules to address certain option
order types, order handling procedures, obvious error and market-maker
quoting obligations on the Exchange after the implementation of the
National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
(``Limit up-Limit Down Plan''). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013.\3\ On March 26,
2013, C2 filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ In
Amendment No. 1, the Exchange, among other things, proposed to add rule
text to give the Exchange authority to review transactions in certain
limited circumstances.\5\ On April 4, C2 filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission received one comment letter on
the proposed rule change.\7\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons and is
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69083 (March 8,
2013), 78 FR 16320 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Amendment No. 1 dated March 26, 2013 (``Amendment No.
1'').
    \5\ Id. Additionally, the Exchange provided rationale for
terminating the HAL auction early and cancelling of the market
orders, discussed infra.
    \6\ See Amendment No. 2 dated April 4, 2013 (``Amendment No.
2''). Amendment No. 2 expanded upon the Exchange's rationale for its
proposal to accept certain types of market orders during a limit up-
limit down state, its proposal to cancel and replace limit orders
with market orders during a limit up-limit down state, and its
proposed treatment of stock-option orders in a limit up-limit down
state. Because Amendment No. 2 is technical in nature, it is not
subject to notice and comment.
    \7\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Angelo Evangelou, Associate General Counsel, C2, dated April 4,
2013 (``C2 Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\8\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6,
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\9\ The

single-stock circuit breaker was designed to reduce extraordinary
market volatility in NMS stocks by imposing a five-minute trading pause
when a trade was executed at a price outside of a specified percentage
threshold.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \9\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \11\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\12\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\13\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \14\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \15\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State,
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety.
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \15\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\17\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 9. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \18\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2

    In light of and in connection with the Plan, the Exchange proposes
to amend its rules to address certain option order types, order
handling procedures, obvious error and market-maker quoting
obligations.\19\ The Exchange believes these modifications will protect
investors because when an underlying security is in a limit or straddle
state (collectively referred to as a ``limit up-limit down state''),
there will not be a reliable price for the security to serve as a
benchmark for the price of the option. In addition, the Exchange
believes these changes are warranted because the width of the options
markets might be compromised during the limit up-limit down states and,
thus, the quality of execution may be adversely impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make changes to
Exchange Rules Rule 6.10, ``Order Types Defined,'' 6.11, ``Openings
(and sometimes Closings),'' Rule 6.13, ``Complex Order Execution,''
Rule 6.15, ``Obvious Error and Catastrophic Errors,'' Rule 6.18,
``HAL,'' Rule 6.39, ``Equity Market Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility,'' Rule 8.5, ``Obligations of Market-Makers, Rule
8.17, ``DPM Obligations,'' and Rule 8.19, ``DPM Participation
Entitlements.'' See Notice and Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Rule 6.39 and the Plan

    The Exchange proposes to add Exchange Rule 6.39 to codify the
changes occurring throughout its rulebook in connection with the Plan.
The Exchange proposes to name Rule 6.39 as ``Equity Market Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility''. The Exchange also plans to
add new rule text that will define the Plan as it applies to the
Exchange, and will describe the location of the other rule changes
associated with the Plan. The proposed changes to Rule 6.39 will
essentially serve as a roadmap for the Exchange's universal changes due
to the implementation of the Plan.

B. Order Handling During the Limit Up-Limit Down State

    The Exchange proposes to add Exchange Rule 6.39 and modify Exchange
Rules 6.10, 6.11, 6.13 and 6.18 to address how certain Exchange order
types will be handled when the underlying security of such orders is in
a limit up-limit down state. The proposed rule change will address how
market orders,\20\ market-on-close,\21\ stop orders,\22\ and stock
option orders \23\ will

function on the Exchange upon the implementation of the Plan. The
Exchange is proposing to add language to clarify that: (a) Any market
order will be returned during limit up-limit down states unless it
qualifies for a certain exception; \24\ (b) market-on-close orders will
not be elected if the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state; (c) stop orders will not be triggered if the underlying security
is in a limit up-limit down state, but will be held until the end of
that state, at which time they will become eligible to be triggered;
(d) stock-option orders will only execute if the calculated stock price
is within the permissible bands.\25\ In addition, if a message is sent
to replace a limit order with a market order while the underlying is in
a limit up-limit down state, the resting limit order will be cancelled
and the replaced market order will also be cancelled. The Exchange
represented that cancelling a market order in this scenario is
consistent with its treatment of market orders that are received during
a limit up-limit down state, and cancelling the original limit order
would be consistent with the Exchange's current cancel and replace
functionality.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchange Rule 6.10 which defines a market order as ``an
order to buy or sell a stated number of options contracts at the
best price available at the time of execution.''
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 6.10(c)(2) which defines a market-on-
close order designation as an order ``to be executed as close as
possible to the closing bell, or during the closing rotation, and
should be near to or at the closing price for the particular series
of option contracts.''
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 6.10(c)(3), which defines a stop order as
a market order ``to buy or sell when the market for a particular
option contract reaches a specified price on the Exchange.''
    \23\ See Exchange Rule 6.13(a)(2) which defines a stock-option
order as ``an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock
* * * coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on
the opposite side of the market.''
    \24\ Specifically, a market order submitted to initiate an
Automated Improvement Mechanism will be accepted. The Exchange
represented that such orders are entered with a contra order, and
are thus effectively stopped because they must execute at a price at
or better than the contra order. See Amendment No. 2.
    \25\ If the calculated price is not within the permissible Price
Bands, the entire Stock-option order will be cancelled. The Exchange
believes this is consistent with the Plan because it ensures that
stock orders are not being electronically routed to stock venues for
executions outside of the permissible Price Bands. See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that, although it has determined to continue
options trading when a stock is in a limit up-limit down state, there
will not be a reliable price for the underlying security to serve as a
benchmark for the price of the option. Without a reliable underlying
stock price, the Exchange stated that there is an enhanced risk of
errors and improper executions. The Exchange also stated that adding a
level of certainty for TPHs by specifying the treatment of such orders
will encourage participation on the Exchange while the underlying
security is in limit up-limit down states. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes these order handling changes will best protect market
participants after the implementation of the Plan by not allowing
execution at unreasonable prices due to the shift in the stock prices.
    The Exchange proposes to modify its opening procedures under
Exchange Rule 6.11, ``Openings (and sometimes Closings).'' The Exchange
proposes to add an Interpretation and Policy .03 to clarify that if the
underlying security for a class of options enters into a limit up-limit
down state when the class moves to opening rotation, any market orders
entered that trading day currently opening, prior to the opening of
that class, will be cancelled. The Exchange stated that this change is
consistent with cancelling the market orders in general during a limit
up-limit down state. The Exchange further believes this proposed change
will help the Exchange to protect the TPHs from executing skewed orders
during limit up-limit down states.
    Next, the Exchange proposes to modify Exchange Rule 6.18, ``HAL.''
This functionality provides automated order handling in designated
classes trading on the System for qualifying orders that are not
automatically executed by the System.\27\ When the Exchange receives a
qualifying order that is marketable against the National Best Bid or
Offer (``NBBO'') and/or the Exchange's best bid or offer (``BBO''),\28\
HAL electronically exposes the order \29\ at the NBBO price to allow
Market-Makers appointed in that class, as well as all Trading Permit
Holders (``TPHs'') acting as agent for orders, at the top of the
Exchange's book in the relevant series (or all TPHs if allowed by the
Exchange) to step up to the NBBO price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Currently, the Exchange determines the eligible order size,
eligible order types, eligible origin code (i.e., public customer
orders, non-Market-Maker broker-dealer orders and Market-Maker
broker-dealer orders), and classes in which HAL is activated. See
Exchange Rule 6.18.
    \28\ HAL will not electronically expose the order if the
Exchange's quotation contains resting orders and does not contain
sufficient Market-Maker quotation interest to satisfy the entire
order.
    \29\ The duration of the exposure period may not exceed one
second. See Exchange Rule 6.18(c) (describing the manner in which an
exposed order is allocated under HAL); see also Exchange Rule
6.18(d) (listing the circumstances in which an exposure period would
terminate early).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.18 to modify the functioning
of HAL with respect to market orders when the underlying security of
the option is in a limit up-limit down state. Under the proposal, if an
underlying security enters a limit up-limit down state while a market
order is being exposed through HAL, the auction will end early, i.e.,
upon the entering of the limit up-limit down state. Additionally, any
unexecuted portion of the market order would be cancelled. The Exchange
stated that because there is an uncertainty of market prices during a
limit up-limit down state, terminating the HAL auction early and
cancelling the market order will ensure that market orders do not
receive an unanticipated price.\30\ As such, the proposed rule changes
would protect market participants by ensuring that they do not receive
an executed order with an unanticipated price due to the change in the
underlying security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify the treatment of complex
orders on the Hybrid System and the Complex Order Auction (``COA'')
process. Generally, on a class-by-class basis, the Exchange may
activate COA, which is a process by which eligible complex orders \31\
are given an opportunity for price improvement before being booked in
the electronic complex order book (``COB'') or on a PAR workstation.
Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order and a request from a TPH
representing the order that such order be subjected to a COA, the
Exchange will send a request for responses (``RFR'') message to all
TPHs who have elected to receive RFR messages.\32\ Each Market-Maker
with an appointment in the relevant option class and each TPH acting as
agent for orders resting at the top of the COB in the relevant options
series may then submit responses to the RFR message during the Response
Time Interval.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ An eligible complex order, referred to in Rule 6.13 as a
``COA-eligible order,'' means a complex order that, as determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA
considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of ticks
away from the current market), size, complex order type and complex
order origin type (i.e., non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-
dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange, and/or Market-Makers or specialists on an options
exchange). All determinations by the Exchange on COA-eligible order
parameters are announced to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory
Circular. See Rule 6.18(c)(1)(B) and Interpretation and Policy .01
to Rule 6.18.
    \32\ See Exchange Rule 6.18(c)(3)(B). The RFR message will
identify the component series, the size of the COA-eligible order
and any contingencies, but will not identify the side of the market.
    \33\ See Exchange Rule 6.18(c)(3)(B). A ``Response Time
Interval'' means the period of time during which responses to the
RFR may be entered, the length of which is determined by the
Exchange on a class-by-class basis but may not exceed three seconds.
See Rule 6.18(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add to the COA rule that if, during COA,
the underlying security of a market order enters a limit up-limit down
state, the COA will end upon the entering of that state and the
remaining portion of the order will cancel.

C. Market Maker Obligations and Participation Entitlements

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate all market maker obligations for
options in which the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state. Currently, Exchange Rules 8.5 and 8.17 impose certain
obligations on Market-Makers and DPMs, respectively, including
obligations to provide continuous quotes.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate all market maker quoting
obligations \34\ in series of options when the underlying security is
currently in a limit up-limit down state. According to the Exchange,
eliminating all Market Maker obligations in connection with the
implementation of the Plan is the most effective way to ensure the
options markets will not be compromised when the underlying security
enters a limit up-limit down state. Specifically, there may not be
reliable prices for an underlying security during a limit up-limit down
state. Additionally, it may be difficult or not possible for a market
participant to hedge the purchase or sale of an option if the bid or
offer of an underlying security may not be executable due to a limit
up-limit down state. Given the possible effects of the limit up-limit
down state, the Exchange anticipates that Exchange Market-Makers may be
forced to change behaviors during these periods. In an effort to
protect the investors in the options market while the underlying
security is in a limit up-limit down state, the Exchange believes that
eliminating quoting obligations is the more effective way for this
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange is proposing to relieve market makers of
their quoting obligations when the underlying is in a limit up-limit
down state, the Exchange is proposing that Market-Makers and DPMs may
still receive participation entitlements pursuant to the proposed rules
in all series in their assigned classes in which they are quoting, even
in series in which they are not required to provide continuous
electronic quotes under the Exchange Rules. The Exchange stated that
market makers already receive participation entitlements in series in
which they are not required to quote; thus, under the proposed rule
change, the market would continue to function as it does now with
respect to how entitlements are allocated to Market-Makers. The
Exchange believes this benefit is appropriate, as it incentivizes
Market-Makers to quote in as many series as possible in their appointed
classes, even those series in which the underlying security has entered
into a limit up-limit down state. The Exchange stated that it is
attempting to better encourage Market-Makers to quote even though they
will not have the obligation. If market makers do choose to quote, the
Exchange believes they should be entitled to receive the entitlement
for such quoting as appropriate.

D. Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions

    In connection with the implementation of the Plan, the Exchange
proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .08 to Rule 6.15 to exclude
transactions in options that overlay a security during a Limit State or
Straddle State from the obvious error pricing provision in Rule
6.15(a)(1) for a one year pilot basis from the date of adoption of the
proposed rule change. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add rule
text to provide that transactions in options that overlay an NMS stock
that occur during a Limit State or Straddle State may be reviewed on an
Exchange motion. The Exchange also proposes to provide the Commission
with data and analysis during the duration of the pilot as requested.
    Under Rule 6.15, an Obvious Error occurs when the execution price
of an electronic transaction is above or below the theoretical price
for the series by a specified amount. Pursuant to Rule 6.15(a)(3)(A),
the theoretical price of an option series is currently defined, for
series traded on at least one other options exchange, as the last
national best bid price with respect to an erroneous sell transaction,
and the last national best offer price with respect to an erroneous buy
transaction, just prior to the trade. In certain circumstances,
designated personnel in the Help Desk have the discretion to determine
the theoretical price pursuant to Rule 6.15(a)(3)(B).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Rule 6.15(a)(3)(B) provides that if there are no quotes for
comparison purposes, designated personnel in the Help Desk will
determine the theoretical price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that neither method is appropriate during a
Limit State or Straddle State. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange noted
that during a Limit State or Straddle State, options prices may deviate
substantially from those available prior to or following the state. The
Exchange believes this provision would give rise to much uncertainty
for market participants as there is no bright line definition of what
the theoretical value should be for an option when the underlying NMS
stock has an unexecutable bid or offer or both. The Exchange noted that
determining theoretical value in such a situation would be often times
very subjective rather than an objective determination and would give
rise to additional uncertainty and confusion for investors. Similarly,
the Exchange believes the application of the current rule would be
impracticable given the lack of a reliable national best bid or offer
in the options market during Limit States and Straddle States, and
would produce undesirable effects.
    Ultimately, the Exchange believes that adding certainty to the
execution of limit orders in these situations should encourage market
participants to continue to provide liquidity to the Exchange, thus
promoting a fair and orderly market. On balance, the Exchange believes
that removing the potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting
executions occurring during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs
any potential benefits from applying these provisions during such
unusual market conditions.
    Therefore, the Exchange proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy
.08 to Rule 6.15 to provide that transactions executed during a Limit
State or Straddle State are not subject to review under Rule 6.15 for
Obvious and Catastrophic Errors. In addition, in Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange proposes to give Exchange Officers the authority to review
transactions believed to be erroneous that occur during a Limit State
or Straddle State, on its own motion.\36\ According to the Exchange,
this safeguard will provide the flexibility to act when necessary and
appropriate, while also providing market participants with certainty
that trades they effect with quotes and/or

orders having limit prices will stand irrespective of subsequent moves
in the underlying security. The right to review on Exchange motion
electronic transactions that occur during a Limit State or Straddle
State under this provision, according to the Exchange, would enable the
Exchange to account for unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious
or catastrophic errors for which a nullification or adjustment may be
necessary in order to preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market and for the protection of investors. The Exchange also
proposes to provide the Commission with data and analysis during the
duration of the pilot as requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add language
that states that in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly
market and for the protection of investors during a limit up-limit
down state, the President of the Exchange or his/her designee, who
shall be an officer of the Exchange but may not be a Permit Holder
(``Exchange Officer''), may, on his or her own motion or upon
request, determine to review any transition occurring on the
Exchange during a limit up-limit down state that is believed to be
erroneous. A transaction reviewed pursuant to this right may be
nullified or adjusted only if it is determined by the Exchange
officer that the transaction is erroneous as provided in Rule 6.15
(a)(1)-(3). A transaction would be adjusted or nullified in
accordance with the provision under which it is deemed an erroneous
transaction. The Exchange Officer may be assisted by the Help Desk
in reviewing a transaction. In addition, the Exchange Officer shall
act as soon as possible after receiving the notification of the
transaction, and ordinarily would be expected to act on the same day
as the transaction occurred. In no event shall the Exchange Officer
act later than 8:30 a.m. (CT) on the next trading day following the
date of the transaction at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\37\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\38\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulation, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Rule 6.39 and the Plan

    Exchange Rule 6.39 lists changes to Exchange order types, order
handling, obvious error, and market-maker quoting obligations that the
Exchange is making in connection with the implementation of the Plan.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 6.39 will
describe to TPHs and other market participants where to find the
changes associated with the Plan's implementation. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that this change promotes clarity in connection with
C2's proposed changes in response to the Limit up-Limit Down Plan and
is therefore consistent with the Act.

B. Order Handling During the Limit Up-Limit Down State

    As detailed above, the Exchange proposes to add language to clarify
that: (a) Market orders, with a certain exception, will be returned
during limit up-limit down states, (b) market-on-close orders will not
be elected if the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state, (c) stop orders will not be triggered while the underlying
security is in a limit up-limit down state, and (d) stock-option orders
will only execute if the calculated stock price is within the
permissible bands. In addition, during a limit up-limit down state, if
a message is sent to replace a limit order with a market order, the
resting limit order will be cancelled and the replaced market order
will also be cancelled.
    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed method of
handling such orders is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
When the underlying stock enters a limit up-limit down state, the lack
of a reliable price in that market could affect the options markets in
various ways, including wider spreads and less liquidity. This could
potentially mean that market orders, which contain no restrictions on
the price at which they may execute, could receive executions at
unintended prices if executed during the limit up-limit down state. As
such, the proposed changes to reject market orders and market-on-close
orders if the underlying is in a limit up-limit down state, to not
trigger stop orders if the underlying is in a limit up-limit down
state, and to cancel market orders that replace limit orders when the
underlying is in a limit up-limit down state, are reasonably designed
to prevent such orders from being executed at potentially unexpected
prices.
    At the same time, the proposed exception to the treatment of these
orders--accepting market orders that are submitted to initiate an
Automated Price Improvement Mechanism--is designed to take into account
the fact that market orders submitted in this way may not be at the
same risk as other market orders for executions at unexpected prices.
Specifically, market orders submitted through the Automated Price
Improvement Mechanism are submitted as pairs, and are effectively
stopped because they must execute at a price at or better than the
contra order.
    The Exchange proposes to add an Interpretation and Policy .03 to
Rule 6.11, which states that if the underlying security for a class of
options enters into a limit up-limit down state when the class moves to
opening rotation, any market orders entered that trading day will be
cancelled. The Commission finds that this change is consistent with the
Act in that it is reasonably designed to counter potential price
dislocations that may occur if the underlying enters a limit up-limit
down state during the opening by preventing market orders, which
contain no restrictions on the price at which they may execute, from
being executed at potentially unintended prices.
    The Exchange also proposes that, if an underlying security enters a
limit up-limit down state while a market order is being exposed through
HAL, the auction will end early, and any unexecuted portion of the
market order would be cancelled. The Commission believes that this
provision will provide certainty to options market participants on how
market orders submitted to HAL will be handled during limit up-limit
down states. In addition, the Commission finds that this provision is
consistent with the Act in that it is reasonably designed to counter
potential price dislocations that may occur if the underlying enters a
limit up-limit down state while the HAL functionality is underway by
preventing market orders, which contain no restrictions on the price at
which they may execute, from being executed at potentially unintended
prices.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the COA rule so that, if during a
COA of a market order, the underlying security of an option enters a
limit up-limit down state, the COA will end and the remaining portion
of the order, if a market order, will cancel. As with the proposed
change to HAL, the Commission believes that this provision is
consistent with the Act in that it will provide certainty to options
market participants on how market orders submitted to COA will be
handled during limit up-limit down states. In addition, the Commission
finds that this provision is reasonably designed to counter potential
price dislocations that may occur if the underlying enters a limit up-
limit down state while a COA is underway by preventing market orders,
which contain no restrictions on the price at which they may execute,
from being executed at potentially unintended prices.

C. Market Maker Obligations

    The Commission finds that the proposal to suspend a market maker's

obligations when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state is consistent with the Act. During a limit up-limit down state,
there may not be a reliable price for the underlying security to serve
as a benchmark for market makers to price options. In addition, the
absence of an executable bid or offer for the underlying security will
make it more difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale
of an option. Given these significant changes to the normal operating
conditions of market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
decision to suspend a market maker's obligations in these limited
circumstances is consistent with the Act. The Commission notes,
however, that the Plan was approved on a pilot basis and its
Participants will monitor how it is functioning in the equity markets
during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission expects that, upon
implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will continue monitoring the
quoting requirements that are being amended in this proposed rule
change and determine if any necessary adjustments are required to
ensure that they remain consistent with the Act.
    The Commission also finds that the proposal to maintain
participation entitlements for market makers in all series in their
assigned classes in which they are quoting, including in series for
which the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down state and for
which they are not required to provide continuous electronic quotes
under the Exchange Rules, is consistent with the Act. To the extent
that market makers are only eligible for participation entitlements if
they are quoting at the best price on the Exchange, this proposal is
reasonably designed to incentivize Market-Makers to quote more
aggressively when the underlying security has entered into a limit up-
limit down state than they might otherwise quote, potentially providing
additional liquidity and price discovery. To the extent that, under
this proposal, market makers would receive participation entitlements
in series in which they are not required to quote, the Commission notes
that this aspect of the proposal is consistent with the current
application of participation entitlements.

D. Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions

    The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposed rule change to
suspend certain aspects of Rule 6.15 during a Limit State or Straddle
State is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\39\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and
equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes its belief that suspending
certain aspects of Rule 6.15 during a Limit State or Straddle State
will ensure that limit orders that are filled during a Limit State or
Straddle State will have certainty of execution in a manner that
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open market and a
national market system. The Exchange believes the application of the
current rule would be impracticable given what it perceives will be the
lack of a reliable NBBO in the options market during Limit States and
Straddle States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., nullified trades
or adjusted prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions. In
addition, given the Exchange's view that options prices during Limit
States or Straddle States may deviate substantially from those
available shortly following the Limit State or Straddle State, the
Exchange believes that providing market participants time to re-
evaluate a transaction executed during a Limit or Straddle State will
create an unreasonable adverse selection opportunity that will
discourage participants from providing liquidity during Limit States or
Straddle States. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that adding
certainty to the execution of orders in these situations should
encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity to the
Exchange during Limit States and Straddle States, thus promoting fair
and orderly markets.
    The Exchange, however, has proposed this rule change based on its
expectations about the quality of the options market during Limit
States and Straddle States. The Exchange states, for example, that it
believes that application of the obvious and catastrophic error rules
would be impracticable given the potential for lack of a reliable NBBO
in the options market during Limit States and Straddle States. Given
the Exchange's recognition of the potential for unreliable NBBOs in the
options markets during Limit States and Straddle States, the Commission
is concerned about the extent to which investors may rely to their
detriment on the quality of quotations and price discovery in the
options markets during these periods. This concern is heightened by the
Exchange's proposal to exclude electronic trades that occur during a
Limit State or Straddle State from the obvious and catastrophic pricing
error provisions and the nullification or adjustment provisions of Rule
6.15. The Commission urges investors and market professionals to
exercise caution when considering trading options under these
circumstances. Broker-dealers also should be mindful of their
obligations to customers that may or may not be aware of specific
options market conditions or the underlying stock market conditions
when placing their orders.
    While the Commission remains concerned about the quality of the
options market during the Limit States and Straddle States, and the
potential impact on investors of executing in this market without the
protections of the obvious or catastrophic error rules that are being
suspended during the Limit and Straddle States, it believes that
certain aspects of the proposal could help mitigate those concerns.
    First, despite the removal of obvious and catastrophic error
protection during Limit States and Straddle States, the Exchange states
that there are additional measures in place designed to protect
investors. For example, the Exchange states in Amendment No. 1 that by
rejecting market orders and not electing stop orders, only those orders
with a limit price will be executed during a Limit State or Straddle
State. Additionally, the Exchange notes the existence of SEC Rule 15c3-
5 requiring broker-dealers to have controls and procedures in place
that are reasonably designed to prevent the entry of erroneous orders.
Therefore, on balance, the Exchange believes that removing the
potential inequity of nullifying or adjusting executions occurring
during Limit States or Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits
from applying certain provisions during such unusual market conditions.
    The Exchange believes that the aspect of the proposed rule change
that will continue to allow the Exchange to review on its own motion
electronic trades that occur during a Limit State or a Straddle State
is consistent with the Act because it would provide flexibility for the
Exchange to act when necessary

and appropriate to nullify or adjust a transaction and will enable the
Exchange to account for unforeseen circumstances that result in obvious
errors for which a nullification or adjustment may be necessary in
order to preserve the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market
and for the protection of investors. The Exchange represents that it
will administer this provision in a manner that is consistent with the
principles of the Act. In addition, the Exchange represents that it
will create and maintain records relating to the use of the authority
to act on its own motion during a Limit State or Straddle State.
    Finally, the Exchange has proposed that the changes be implemented
on a one year pilot basis. The Commission believes that it is important
to implement the proposal as a pilot. The one year pilot period will
allow the Exchange time to assess the impact of the Plan on the options
marketplace and allow the Commission to further evaluate the effect of
the proposal prior to any proposal or determination to make the changes
permanent. To this end, the Exchange has committed to: (1) Evaluate the
options market quality during Limit States and Straddle States; (2)
assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during
Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review any complaints from
members and their customers concerning executions during Limit States
and Straddle States. Additionally, the Exchange has agreed to provide
the Commission with data requested to evaluate the impact of the
elimination of the obvious error rule, including data relevant to
assessing the various analyses noted above. On April 4, 2013, the
Exchange submitted a letter stating that it would provide specific data
to the Commission and the public and certain analysis to the Commission
to evaluate the impact of Limit States and Straddle States on liquidity
and market quality in the options markets.\40\ This will allow the
Commission, the Exchange, and other interested parties to evaluate the
quality of the options markets during Limit States and Straddle States
and to assess whether the additional protections noted by the Exchange
are sufficient safeguards against the submission of erroneous trades,
and whether the Exchange's proposal appropriately balances the
protection afforded to an erroneous order sender against the potential
hazards associated with providing market participants additional time
to review trades submitted during a Limit State or Straddle State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In particular, the Exchange represented that, at least two
months prior to the end of the one year pilot period of proposed
Interpretation and Policy .08 to Rule 6.15, it would provide to the
Commission an evaluation of (i) the statistical and economic impact
of Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options
market and (ii) whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect
during the Limit States and Straddle States are problematic. In
addition, the Exchange represented that each month following the
adoption of the proposed rule change it would provide to the
Commission and the public a dataset containing certain data elements
for each Limit State and Straddle State in optionable stocks. The
Exchange stated that the options included in the dataset will be
those that meet the following conditions: (i) The options are more
than 20% in the money (strike price remains greater than 80% of the
last stock trade price for calls and strike price remains greater
than 120% of the last stock trade price for puts when the Limit
State or Straddle State is reached); (ii) the option has at least
two trades during the Limit State or Straddle State; and (iii) the
top ten options (as ranked by overall contract volume on that day)
meeting the conditions listed above. For each of those options
affected, each dataset will include, among other information: stock
symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Limit State or
Straddle State and an indicator for whether it is a Limit State or
Straddle State. For activity on the exchange in the relevant
options, the Exchange has agreed to provide executed volume, time-
weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth
at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer, high
execution price, low execution price, number of trades for which a
request for review for error was received during Straddle States and
Limit States, an indicator variable for whether those options
outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the
underlying stock's Limit State or Straddle State compared to the
last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of
the Limit or Straddle state (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and
another indicator variable for whether the option price within five
minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit State or Straddle
State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the
start of the Limit State or Straddle state. See C2 Letter, supra
note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \41\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. This proposal is related to the Plan, which will
become operative on April 8, 2013, and aspects of the proposal, such as
rejecting market orders and not electing stop orders during a limit up-
limit down state, are designed to prevent such orders from receiving
poor executions during those times. In granting accelerated approval,
the proposed rule change, and its corresponding protections, will take
effect upon the Plan's implementation date. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that good cause exists for approving the proposed rule change on
an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2013-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-013 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2013.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\42\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2013-013), as modified by
Amendments Nos.

1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08613 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46351-46353]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18639]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0160; FRL-9914-70-Region 3]

Commonwealth of Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting errors
in the rule language of a final rule pertaining to the infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 11, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking action
announcing the approval of several infrastructure elements for the 1997
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP). 76 FR
62635. In that final rulemaking, EPA approved the addition of section
10.1-1302 of the Code of Virginia into the Virginia SIP; however, in
that rulemaking action, EPA inadvertently failed to include amendatory
language which would have added an entry to the EPA-approved Virginia
regulations table at 40 CFR 52.2420(c). This rulemaking action corrects
that omission.

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides
that when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public
procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good
cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment because EPA is merely correcting an errant omission of
amendatory language from a previous rulemaking action. Thus, notice and
public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

II. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .'' The opinion concludes
that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD, NSR, or Title V program consistent with the Federal requirements.
In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit
privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time
invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions
of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In
addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective
sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good
cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of August 8, 2014.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR 52.2420 for
Virginia is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Dated: July 10, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding, in numerical order, an entry
for Section 10.1-1302 under the heading ``Code of Virginia'' in the
table in paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State                              Explanation
         State citation                 Title/subject        effective    EPA approval date       [former SIP
                                                                date                               citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Code of Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 10.1-1302...............  Qualifications of              7/1/08  10/11/11, 76 FR      Section added.
                                   members of Boards.                     62635.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-18639 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12163-12166]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. PF15-5-000; PF15-6-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc., Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC; Notice
of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned
Supply Header Project and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Supply Header Project
(SHP) involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion
Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project (ACP Project) involving
construction and operation of facilities by Atlantic Coast Pipeline,
LLC (Atlantic) in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The
environmental impacts of both projects will be considered in one EIS,
which will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and
necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the projects. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS. Please note
that the scoping period will close on April 28, 2015.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. If you sent comments on the SHP
or ACP Projects to the Commission before the opening of the dockets on
October 31, 2014, you will need to file those comments under Docket No.
PF15-5-000 or PF15-6-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this
proceeding. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the
Commission invites you to attend any of the public scoping meetings
scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 9, 2015, 7:00 p.m.            Pine Forest High School, 525
                                             Andrews Road, Fayetteville,
                                             NC 28311.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015, 7:00 p.m.          Forest Hills Middle School,
                                             1210 Forest Hills Road,
                                             Wilson, NC 27896.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 7:00 p.m.        William R. Davie Middle
                                             School, 4391 Hwy. 158,
                                             Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870.
Thursday, March 12, 2015, 7:00 p.m.         Jolliff Middle School, 1021
                                             Jolliff Road, Chesapeake,
                                             VA 23331.
Monday, March 16, 2015, 7:00 p.m.           Dinwiddie Middle School,
                                             11608 Courthouse Road,
                                             Dinwiddie, VA 23841.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015, 7:00 p.m.          Prince Edward County High
                                             School Auditorium, 1482
                                             Zion Hill Road, Farmville,
                                             VA 23901.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 7:00 p.m.        Nelson County Middle School,
                                             6925 Thomas Nelson Highway,
                                             Lovingston, VA 22949.
Thursday, March 19, 2015, 7:00 p.m.         Stuarts Draft High School,
                                             1028 Augusta Farms Road,
                                             Stuarts Draft, VA 24477.
Monday, March 23, 2015, 7:00 p.m.           Elkins High School, 100
                                             Kennedy Drive, Elkins, WV
                                             26241.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015, 7:00 p.m.          Bridgeport High School, 515
                                             Johnson Avenue, Bridgeport,
                                             WV 26330.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide an opportunity
to verbally comment on the projects. If a significant number of people
are interested in commenting at the meetings, we \1\ may establish a 3-
to 5-minute time limit for each commentor to ensure that all people
wishing to comment have the opportunity in the time allotted for the
meeting. If time limits on comments are implemented, they will be
strictly enforced. A transcript of each meeting will be added to the
Commission's administrative record to ensure that your comments are
accurately recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for these projects. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of these

planned projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the projects, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Projects

    The SHP would involve the construction and operation of
approximately 38.7 miles of pipeline loop \2\ and the modification of
existing compression facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The
pipeline facilities associated with the SHP would be comprised of two
main components: (1) Approximately 3.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's existing LN-25
pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania; and (2) approximately
34.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop adjacent to Dominion's
existing TL-360 pipeline in Harrison, Doddridge, Tyler, and Wetzel
Counties, West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline ``loop'' is a segment of pipe constructed
parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the planned pipelines, Dominion plans to modify four
existing compressor stations in Westmoreland and Green Counties,
Pennsylvania and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. Dominion
would install new gas-fired turbines that would provide for a combined
increase of 75,700 horsepower of compression. Dominion would also
install new valves, pig launcher/receiver sites,\3\ and associated
appurtenances at these existing compressor station locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ACP Project would involve the construction and operation of 554
miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia,
Virginia, and North Carolina. The pipeline facilities associated with
the ACP Project would be comprised of four main components as follows:
     Approximately 295.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in
Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West
Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince
Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties,
Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina;
     approximately 179.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties, North Carolina;
     approximately 75.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral
pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; and Greensville,
Southampton, Suffolk, and Chesapeake Counties, Virginia; and
     approximately 3.1 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas
lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia.
    In addition to the planned pipelines, Atlantic plans to construct
and operate three new compressor stations totaling 108,275 horsepower
of compression. These compressor stations would be located in Lewis
County, West Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton
County, North Carolina. Atlantic would also install metering stations,
valves, pig launcher/receiver sites, and associated appurtenances along
the planned pipeline system.
    The SHP and ACP Projects would be capable of delivering 1.5 billion
cubic feet of natural gas per day to seven planned distribution points
in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved,
construction of the projects is proposed to begin in September 2016.
The general location of the projects' facilities and a number of
alternatives under consideration are shown in the maps in appendix
1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 12,972
acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. The typical
construction right-of-way for pipeline facilities would vary between
125 feet wide for the 42-inch-diameter pipeline and 75 feet wide for
the 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline, with additional workspace needed
in some locations due to site-specific conditions. Following
construction, approximately 4,370 acres of land would be retained for
permanent operation of the facilities. Land affected by construction
but not required for operation would generally be allowed to revert to
former uses.

The EIS Process

    The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the
EIS. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating
agency because the ACP Project would cross the Monongahela and George
Washington National Forests in West Virginia and Virginia. As a
cooperating agency, the USFS intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.3 to meet its
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regarding Atlantic's planned application for a Right-of-Way Grant and
Temporary Use Permit for crossing federally administered lands. The
USFS additionally will assess how the planned pipeline conforms to the
direction contained in the Monongahela and George Washington National
Forests' Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP). Changes in the LRMP
could be required if the pipeline is authorized across the National
Forests. The EIS will provide the documentation to support any needed
amendments to the LRMPs.
    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA
also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have
about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We
will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned projects under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;

     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     socioeconomics; and
     public safety.
    We will present our recommendations in the EIS on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas, as applicable.
    Dominion and Atlantic are evaluating several route alternatives
that were developed through the company's route selection and
constraint analysis processes or identified by stakeholders during
public outreach efforts. Major route alternatives that have been
identified by Dominion and Atlantic are presented in appendix 1. More
detailed maps of these, and other, potential alternative routes can be
found on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov, or Dominion's Web site at
https://www.dom.com/corporate/what-we-do/natural-gas/atlantic-coast-pipeline. Part of our NEPA analysis will include evaluating possible
alternatives to the planned projects or portions of the projects. Thus,
as part of our scoping process, we are specifically soliciting comments
on the range of alternatives for both of the projects.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning
on page 8.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to these projects to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\5\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. As discussed above, the USFS has expressed its intention to
participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS to
satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to these projects. In
addition to the USFS, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also agreed to participate as
cooperating agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and to solicit
their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic
properties.\6\ We will define the project-specific Area of Potential
Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the projects develop.
On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction
right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and
access roads). Our EIS for these projects will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Dominion and Atlantic. This
preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our
analysis.
     Land use impacts, including the exercise of eminent domain
and future land use restrictions;
     impacts on property values, tourism, and recreational
resources;
     safety issues, such as construction and operation of the
planned facilities near existing residences, schools, businesses, and
military training facilities, and in karst and steep slope terrain;
     alternatives, including routing within existing linear
corridors, avoiding private property, National Forests, National
Parkway lands, National Wildlife Refuge land, and other sensitive
environmental features;
     impacts on local emergency management systems;
     impacts on forested areas and other vegetation;
     impacts on surface water resources including springs,
seeps, and wetlands;
     impacts on groundwater resources and wells;
     impacts on protected species and habitat;
     impacts on cultural resources including battlefields,
cemeteries, and historic properties; and
     concerns regarding construction and operational noise,
especially related to compressor stations.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the projects. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before April
28, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
appropriate project docket number(s) (PF15-5-000 for the SHP and PF15-
6-000 for the ACP Project) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling,

you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of
filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular
project, please select ``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who
submits comments on the projects. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned projects.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Dominion and Atlantic file applications with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to
the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives formal applications for the projects.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF15-5 or PF15-6). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05248 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P