[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60421-60427]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95939; File No. SR-FINRA-2022-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 11892 (Clearly Erroneous
Transactions in Exchange-Listed Securities)

September 29, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 28, 2022, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 11892 (Clearly Erroneous
Transactions in Exchange-Listed Securities) to make the current clearly
erroneous pilot program permanent and limit the circumstances under
which clearly erroneous review would be available.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal

office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 1, 2022, the Commission approved the proposal of Cboe
BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') to amend BZX Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous
Executions, to: (1) make the current clearly erroneous pilot program
permanent; and (2) limit the circumstances where clearly erroneous
review would continue to be available during regular trading hours,\4\
when the LULD Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the
``LULD Plan'') \5\ already provides similar protections for trades
occurring at prices that may be deemed erroneous.\6\ FINRA now proposes
to similarly amend FINRA's rules for clearly erroneous transactions in
exchange-listed securities to: (1) make the current clearly erroneous
pilot program permanent; and (2) limit the circumstances where clearly
erroneous review would continue to be available during normal market
hours,\7\ when the LULD Plan already provides similar protections for
trades occurring at prices that may be deemed erroneous.\8\ FINRA
believes that these changes are appropriate as the LULD Plan has been
approved by the Commission on a permanent basis,\9\ and in light of
amendments to the LULD Plan, including changes to the applicable price
bands \10\ around the open and close of trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under BZX rules, the term ``regular trading hours'' means
the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See BZX Rule
1.5(w).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95658 (September 1,
2022), 87 FR 55060 (September 8, 2022) (Order Approving File No. SR-
CboeBZX-2022-037).
    \7\ The term ``normal market hours'' means the time between 9:30
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See FINRA Rule 11892(b)(1)
(proposed to be moved to FINRA Rule 11892(a)(1)).
    \8\ FINRA understands that the other self-regulatory
organizations (``SROs'') have or will similarly submit to the
Commission substantively identical proposals.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84843 (December 18,
2018), 83 FR 66464 (December 26, 2018) (``Notice''); 85623 (April
11, 2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019) (File No. 4-631)
(``Amendment Eighteen'').
    \10\ ``Price bands'' refers to the term provided in Section V of
the LULD Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make the Clearly Erroneous Pilot Permanent
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to FINRA Rule 11892 that, among other things: (i) provided for
uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock
events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the
ability of FINRA to deviate from the objective standards set forth in
the rule.\11\ In 2013, FINRA adopted a provision designed to address
the operation of the LULD Plan.\12\ Finally, in 2014, FINRA adopted two
additional provisions providing that: (i) a series of transactions in a
particular security on one or more trading days may be viewed as one
event if all such transactions were effected based on the same
fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information
resulting in a severe valuation error for all such transactions; and
(ii) in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the operation of
the electronic communications and trading facilities of a SRO or
responsible single plan processor in connection with the transmittal or
receipt of a trading halt, a FINRA Officer, acting on his or her own
motion, shall nullify any transaction that occurs after a trading halt
has been declared by the primary listing market for a security and
before such trading halt has officially ended according to the primary
listing market.\13\ These changes are currently scheduled to operate
for a pilot period that would end at the close of business on October
20, 2022.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62885 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56641 (September 16, 2010) (Order Approving File
No. SR-FINRA-2010-032).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68808 (February 1,
2013), 78 FR 9083 (February 7, 2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2013-012).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72434 (June 19,
2014), 79 FR 36110 (June 25, 2014) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2014-021).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95322 (July 19,
2022), 87 FR 44160 (July 25, 2022) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2022-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When it originally approved the clearly erroneous pilot, the
Commission explained that the changes were ``being implemented on a
pilot basis so that the Commission and FINRA can monitor the effects of
the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate
adjustments, as necessary.'' \15\ In the 12 years since that time,
FINRA and the national securities exchanges have gained considerable
experience in the operation of the rule, as amended on a pilot basis.
Based on that experience, FINRA believes that the program should be
allowed to continue on a permanent basis so that equities market
participants and investors can benefit from the increased certainty
provided by the amended rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62885 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56641, 56645 (September 16, 2010) (Order Approving
File No. SR-FINRA-2010-032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The clearly erroneous pilot was implemented following a severe
disruption in the U.S. equities markets on May 6, 2010 (``Flash
Crash'') to ``provide greater transparency and certainty to the process
of breaking trades.'' \16\ Largely, the pilot reduced the discretion of
FINRA and the national securities exchanges to deviate from the
objective standards in their respective rules when dealing with
potentially erroneous transactions. The pilot has thus helped afford
greater certainty to members and investors about when trades will be
deemed erroneous pursuant to SRO rules and has provided a more
transparent process for conducting such reviews. FINRA proposes to make
the current pilot permanent so that market participants can continue to
benefit from the increased certainty afforded by the current rule.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 75 FR 56641, 56642.
    \17\ To accomplish this, FINRA proposes to remove the text of
existing Supplementary Material .02 of FINRA Rule 11892, which
currently provides that the amendments set forth in File Nos. SR-
FINRA-2010-032 and SR-FINRA-2014-021, and the provisions of
Supplementary Material .03 of this Rule shall be in effect during a
pilot period that expires at the close of business on October 20,
2022. Existing Supplementary Material .02 further provides that, if
the pilot period is not extended or approved as permanent, the
version of this Rule prior to SR-FINRA-2010-032 shall be in effect,
and the amendments set forth in File No. SR-FINRA-2014-021 and the
provisions of Supplementary Material .03 of this Rule shall be null
and void.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to the Clearly Erroneous Rules
    When the Participants to the LULD Plan filed to introduce the Limit
Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') mechanism, itself a response to the Flash
Crash, a handful of commenters noted the potential discordance between
the clearly erroneous rules and the Price Bands used to limit the price
at which trades

would be permitted to be executed pursuant to the LULD Plan. For
example, two commenters requested that the clearly erroneous rules be
amended so the presumption would be that trades executed within the
Price Bands would not be not subject to review.\18\ While the
Participants acknowledged that the potential to prevent clearly
erroneous executions would be a ``key benefit'' of the LULD Plan, the
Participants decided not to amend the clearly erroneous rules at that
time.\19\ In the years since, industry feedback has continued to
reflect a desire to eliminate the discordance between the LULD
mechanism and the clearly erroneous rules so that market participants
would have more certainty that trades executed within the LULD price
bands would stand. For example, the Equity Market Structure Advisory
Committee (``EMSAC'') Market Quality Subcommittee included in its April
19, 2016 status report a preliminary recommendation that clearly
erroneous rules be amended to conform to the price bands--i.e., ``any
trade that takes place within the band would stand and not be broken
and trades outside the LU/LD bands would be eligible for the
consideration of the Clearly Erroneous rules.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498, 33505 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631).
    \19\ See supra note 18.
    \20\ See EMSAC Market Quality Subcommittee, Recommendations for
Rulemaking on Issues of Market Quality (November 29, 2016),
available at https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/emsac-/emsac/recommendations-rulemaking-market-quality.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that it is important for there to be some mechanism
to ensure that investors' orders are either not executed at clearly
erroneous prices or are subsequently busted as needed to maintain a
fair and orderly market. At the same time, FINRA believes that the LULD
Plan, as amended, would provide sufficient protection for trades
executed during normal market hours. Indeed, the LULD mechanism could
be considered to offer superior protection as it prevents potentially
erroneous trades from being executed in the first instance. After
gaining experience with the LULD Plan, FINRA now believes that it is
appropriate to largely eliminate clearly erroneous review during normal
market hours when price bands are in effect. Thus, as proposed, trades
executed within the price bands would stand, barring one of a handful
of identified scenarios where such review may still be necessary for
the protection of investors. FINRA believes that this change would be
beneficial for the U.S. equities markets as it would ensure that trades
executed within the price bands are subject to clearly erroneous review
in only rare circumstances, resulting in greater certainty for members
and investors.
    The current LULD mechanism for addressing extraordinary market
volatility is available solely during normal market hours. Thus, trades
outside of normal market hours would not benefit from this protection
and could ultimately be executed at prices that may be considered
erroneous. For this reason, FINRA proposes that transactions executed
outside of normal market hours would continue to be reviewable as
clearly erroneous. Continued availability of the clearly erroneous rule
at times outside of normal market hours would therefore ensure that
FINRA has appropriate authority when erroneous trades are executed
outside of the hours where similar protection can be provided by the
LULD Plan. Further, the proposal is designed to eliminate the potential
discordance between clearly erroneous review and LULD price bands,
which does not exist outside of normal market hours because the LULD
Plan is not in effect. Thus, FINRA believes that it is appropriate to
continue to allow transactions to be eligible for clearly erroneous
review if executed outside of normal market hours.
    On the other hand, there would be much more limited potential for
clearly erroneous transactions during normal market hours. With the
introduction of the LULD mechanism in 2013, clearly erroneous trades
are largely prevented by the requirement that trades be executed within
the price bands. In addition, in 2019, Amendment Eighteen to the LULD
Plan eliminated double-wide price bands: (1) at the open, and (2) at
the close for Tier 2 NMS Stocks 2 with a reference price above
$3.00.\21\ Due to these changes, FINRA believes that the price bands
would provide sufficient protection to investor orders such that
clearly erroneous review would no longer be necessary during normal
market hours. As the Participants to the LULD Plan explained in
Amendment Eighteen: ``[b]roadly, the Limit Up-Limit Down mechanism
prevents trades from happening at prices where one party to the trade
would be considered `aggrieved,' and thus could be viewed as an
appropriate mechanism to supplant clearly erroneous rules.'' While the
Participants also expressed concern that the price bands might be too
wide to afford meaningful protection around the open and close of
trading, amendments to the LULD Plan adopted in Amendment Eighteen
narrowed price bands at these times in a manner that FINRA believes is
sufficient to ensure that investors' orders would be appropriately
protected in the absence of clearly erroneous review. FINRA therefore
believes that it is appropriate to rely on the LULD mechanism as the
primary means of preventing clearly erroneous trades during normal
market hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Amendment Eighteen, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, FINRA is cognizant that there may be limited
circumstances where clearly erroneous review may continue to be
appropriate, even during normal market hours. Thus, FINRA proposes to
amend its clearly erroneous rules to enumerate the specific
circumstances where such review would remain available during the
course of normal market hours, as follows. All transactions that fall
outside of these specific enumerated exceptions would be ineligible for
clearly erroneous review.
    First, pursuant to proposed paragraph (b)(1)(A), a transaction
executed during normal market hours would continue to be eligible for
clearly erroneous review if the transaction is not subject to the LULD
Plan. In such case, the numerical guidelines set forth in paragraph
(b)(2) of FINRA Rule 11892 will be applicable to such NMS stock. While
the majority of exchange-listed securities would be subject to the LULD
Plan, certain equity securities, such as rights and warrants, are
explicitly excluded from the provisions of the LULD Plan and would
therefore be eligible for clearly erroneous review instead.\22\
Similarly, there are instances, such as the opening auction on the
primary listing market,\23\ where transactions are not ordinarily
subject to the LULD Plan, or circumstances where a transaction that
ordinarily would have been subject to the LULD Plan is not--due, for
example, to some issue with processing the price bands. These
transactions would continue to be eligible for clearly erroneous
review, effectively ensuring that such review remains available as a
backstop when the LULD Plan would not prevent executions from occurring
at erroneous prices in the first instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Appendix A of the LULD Plan.
    \23\ The initial reference price used to calculate price bands
is typically set by the opening price on the primary listing market.
See Section V(B) of the LULD Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, transactions that resulted from certain systems issues
pursuant to proposed paragraph (b)(1)(B) would continue to be eligible
for clearly erroneous review. This limited exception would help to
ensure that trades that should not have been

executed would continue to be subject to clearly erroneous review.
Specifically, as proposed, transactions executed during normal market
hours would be eligible for clearly erroneous review pursuant to
proposed paragraph (b)(1)(B) if as a result of a member's technology or
systems issue any transaction reported to a FINRA system, such as a
FINRA TRF or ADF, occurs outside of the applicable LULD price bands
pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 of FINRA Rule 11892. A
transaction subject to review pursuant to this paragraph shall be found
to be clearly erroneous if the price of the subject transaction to buy
(sell) is greater than (less than) the reference price, described in
proposed paragraph (c) of FINRA Rule 11892, by an amount that equals or
exceeds the applicable ``percentage parameter,'' as defined in Appendix
A to the LULD Plan.
    Third, FINRA proposes to narrowly allow for the review of
transactions during normal market hours when the reference price,
described in proposed paragraph (c), is determined to be erroneous by a
FINRA officer. Specifically, a transaction executed during normal
market hours would be eligible for clearly erroneous review pursuant to
proposed paragraph (b)(1)(C) if the transaction involved, in the case
of (1) a corporate action or new issue or (2) a security that enters a
trading pause pursuant to the LULD Plan and resumes trading without an
auction,\24\ a reference price that is determined to be erroneous by a
FINRA officer because it clearly deviated from the theoretical value of
the security. In such circumstances, FINRA may use a different
reference price pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(2) of FINRA Rule
11892. A transaction subject to review pursuant to this paragraph shall
be found to be clearly erroneous if the price of the subject
transaction to buy (sell) is greater than (less than) the new reference
price, described in paragraph (c)(2) of FINRA Rule 11892, by an amount
that equals or exceeds the applicable numerical guidelines or
percentage parameters, as applicable depending on whether the security
is subject to the LULD Plan. Specifically, the percentage parameters
would apply to all transactions except those in an NMS Stock that is
not subject to the LULD Plan, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FINRA notes that the ``resumption of trading without an
auction'' provision of the proposed rule text applies only to
securities that enter a trading pause pursuant to LULD and does not
apply to a corporate action or new issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of a corporate action or a new issue, there may be
instances where the security's reference price is later determined
FINRA to be erroneous (e.g., because of a bad first trade for a new
issue), and subsequent LULD price bands are calculated from that
incorrect reference price. In determining whether the reference price
is erroneous in such instances, FINRA would generally look to see if
such reference price clearly deviated from the theoretical value of the
security. In such cases, FINRA would consider a number of factors to
determine a new reference price that is based on the theoretical value
of the security, including but not limited to, the offering price of
the new issue, the ratio of the stock split applied to the prior day's
closing price, the theoretical price derived from the numerical terms
of the corporate action transaction such as the exchange ratio and
spin-off terms, and the prior day's closing price on the over-the-
counter (``OTC'') market for an OTC up-listing.\25\ In the foregoing
instances, the theoretical value of the security would be used as the
new reference price when applying the percentage parameters under the
LULD Plan (or numerical guidelines if the transaction is in an NMS
stock that is not subject to the LULD Plan) to determine whether
executions would be cancelled as clearly erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Using transaction data reported to the FINRA OTC Reporting
Facility, FINRA disseminates via the Trade Data Dissemination
Service a final closing report for OTC equity securities for each
business day that includes, among other things, each security's
closing last sale price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following illustrate the proposed application of the rule in
the context of a corporate action or new issue:
Example 1
1. ABCD is subject to a corporate action, 1 for 10 reverse split,
and the previous day close was $5, but the new theoretical price
based on the terms of the corporate action is $50
2. The security opens at $5, with LULD bands at $4.50 x $5.50
3. The bands will be calculated correctly but the security is
trading at an erroneous price based on the valuation of the
remaining outstanding shares
4. The theoretical price of $50 would be used as the new reference
price when applying LULD bands to determine if executions would be
cancelled as clearly erroneous
Example 2
1. ABCD is subject to a corporate action, the company is doing a
spin off where a new issue will be listed, BCDE. ABCD trades at $50,
and the spinoff company is worth \1/5\ of ABCD
2. BCDE opens at $50 in the belief it is the same company as ABCD
3. The theoretical values of the two companies are ABCD $40 and BCDE
$10
4. BCDE would be deemed to have had an incorrect reference price and
the theoretical value of $10 would be used as the new reference
price when applying the LULD bands to determine if executions would
be cancelled as clearly erroneous
Example 3
1. ABCD is an up-list from the OTC market, the prior day's close on
the OTC market was $20
2. ABCD opens trading on the new listing exchange at $0.20 due to an
erroneous order entry
3. The new reference price to determine clearly erroneous executions
would be $20, the theoretical value of the stock based on where it
was last traded

    In the context of the rare situation in which a security that
enters a LULD trading pause and resumes trading without an auction
(i.e., reopens with quotations), the LULD Plan requires that the new
reference price in this instance be established by using the mid-point
of the best bid and offer (``BBO'') on the primary listing exchange at
the reopening time.\26\ This can result in a reference price and
subsequent LULD price band calculation that is significantly away from
the security's last traded or more relevant price, especially in less
liquid names. In such rare instances, FINRA is proposing to use a
different reference price that is based on the prior LULD band that
triggered the trading pause, rather than the midpoint of the BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See LULD Plan, Section I(U) and V(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the proposed application of the
rule in the context of a security that reopens without an auction:
Example 4
1. ABCD stock is trading at $20, with LULD bands at $18 x $22
2. An incoming buy order causes the stock to enter a limit state
trading pause and then a trading pause at $22
3. During the trading pause, the buy order causing the trading pause
is cancelled
4. At the end of the 5-minute halt, there is no crossed interest for
an auction to occur, thus trading would resume on a quote
5. Upon resumption, a quote that was available prior to the trading
pause (e.g., a quote was resting on the book prior to the trading
pause), is widely set at $10 x $90
6. The reference price upon resumption is $50 (mid-point of BBO)
7. The SIP will use this reference price and publish LULD bands of
$45 x $55 (i.e., far away from BBO prior to the halt)
8. The bands will be calculated correctly, but the $50 reference
price is subsequently determined to be incorrect as the price
clearly deviated from where it previously traded prior to the
trading pause

9. The new reference price would be $22 (i.e., the last effective
price band that was in a limit state before the trading pause), and
the LULD bands would be applied to determine if the executions
should be cancelled as clearly erroneous

    In all of the foregoing situations, FINRA would not have authority
to review transactions as clearly erroneous without the proposed
carveouts in paragraph (b)(1)(C) because the trades occurred within the
LULD price bands (albeit LULD price bands that were calculated from an
erroneous reference price). FINRA believes that removing the current
ability for FINRA to review in these narrow circumstances would lessen
investor protections.
Numerical Guidelines
    Today, paragraph (b)(1) defines the numerical guidelines that are
used to determine if a transaction is deemed clearly erroneous during
normal market hours, or outside of normal market hours. With respect to
normal market hours, trades are generally deemed clearly erroneous if
the execution price differs from the reference price (i.e., last sale)
by 10% if the reference price is greater than $0.00 up to and including
$25.00; 5% if the reference price is greater than $25.00 up to and
including $50.00; and 3% if the reference price is greater than $50.00.
Wider parameters are also used for reviews for multi-stock events, as
described in paragraph (b)(2). With respect to transactions in
leveraged ETF/ETN securities executed during normal market hours and
outside of normal market hours, trades are deemed clearly erroneous if
the execution price exceeds the normal market hours numerical
guidelines multiplied by the leverage multiplier.
    Given the changes described in this proposed rule change, FINRA
proposes to amend the way that the numerical guidelines are calculated
during normal market hours in the handful of instances where clearly
erroneous review would continue to be available. Specifically, FINRA
would base these numerical guidelines, as applied to the circumstances
described in paragraph (b)(1)(A), on the percentage parameters used to
calculate price bands, as set forth in Appendix A to the LULD Plan.
Without this change, a transaction that would otherwise stand if price
bands were properly applied to the transaction may end up being subject
to review and deemed clearly erroneous solely due to the fact that the
price bands were not available due to a systems or other issue. FINRA
believes that it makes more sense to instead base the price bands on
the same parameters as would otherwise determine whether the trade
would have been allowed to execute within the price bands. FINRA also
proposes to modify the numerical guidelines applicable to leveraged
ETF/ETN securities during normal market hours. As noted above, the
numerical guidelines will only be applicable to transactions eligible
for review pursuant paragraph (b)(1)(A) (i.e., to NMS stocks that are
not subject to the LULD Plan). As leveraged ETF/ETN securities are
subject to LULD and thus the percentage parameters will be applicable
during normal market hours, FINRA proposes to eliminate the numerical
guidelines for leveraged ETF/ETN securities traded during normal market
hours. However, as no price bands are available outside of normal
market hours, FINRA proposes to keep the existing numerical guidelines
in place for transactions in leveraged ETF/ETN securities that occur
outside of normal market hours.
    FINRA also proposes to move existing paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3)
to proposed paragraph (b)(2)(B) and (b)(2)(C), respectively, as multi-
stock events and additional factors will only be subject to review if
those NMS stocks are not subject to the LULD Plan or occur outside of
normal market hours. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(B) is substantially
similar to existing paragraph (b)(2) except to update the opening
language to limit application of paragraph (b)(2)(B) to multi-stock
events occurring outside of normal market hours or eligible for review
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(A). Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(C) is also
substantially similar to existing paragraph (b)(3) except to update its
application to executions occurring outside of normal market hours or
eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(A).
Reference Price
    As proposed, the reference price used would continue to be based on
last sale and would be memorialized in proposed paragraph (c).
Continuing to use the last sale as the reference price is necessary for
operational efficiency as it may not be possible to perform a timely
clearly erroneous review if doing so required computing the arithmetic
mean price of eligible reported transactions over the past five
minutes, as contemplated by the LULD Plan. While this means that there
would still be some differences between the price bands and the clearly
erroneous parameters, FINRA believes that this difference is reasonable
in light of the need to ensure timely review if clearly erroneous rules
are invoked. FINRA also proposes to allow for an alternate reference
price to be used as prescribed in proposed paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and
(3). Specifically, the reference price may be a value other than the
consolidated last sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under
review: (1) in the case of multi-stock events involving twenty or more
securities, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(B); (2) in the case of an
erroneous reference price, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(C); \27\ or
(3) in other circumstances, such as, for example, relevant news
impacting a security or securities, periods of extreme market
volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues, where
use of a different reference price is necessary for the maintenance of
a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors and the
public interest, provided that such circumstances occurred outside of
normal market hours or are eligible for review pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As discussed above, in the case of (b)(1)(C)(1), FINRA
would consider a number of factors to determine a new reference
price that is based on the theoretical value of the security,
including but not limited to, the offering price of the new issue,
the ratio of the stock split applied to the prior day's closing
price, the theoretical price derived from the numerical terms of the
corporate action transaction such as the exchange ratio and spin-off
terms, and the prior day's closing price on the OTC market for an
OTC up-listing. In the case of (b)(1)(C)(2), the reference price
will be the last effective price band that was in a limit state
before the trading pause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedures for Reviewing Transactions
    Paragraph (a)(1) sets forth the procedures for reviewing
transactions under FINRA Rule 11892 and currently provides that a FINRA
officer may, on his or her own motion, review any OTC transaction
involving an exchange-listed security arising out of or reported
through a trade reporting system owned or operated by FINRA or FINRA
Regulation and authorized by the Commission, provided that the
transaction meets the thresholds set forth in paragraph (b), except as
provided for in paragraphs (c) and (d). In light of the proposed
structural changes to the Rule described above, FINRA proposes to amend
paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that such review is only available for
transactions occurring outside of normal market hours or eligible for
review pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), and to conform and streamline
other language and references throughout paragraph (a)(1).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ As noted above, given that the term ``normal market hours''
would now appear in paragraph (a)(1) of the Rule, FINRA proposes to
define it here rather than in paragraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeals
    Paragraph (a)(2) currently provides that if a FINRA officer acting
pursuant to FINRA Rule 11892 declares any transaction null and void,
each party

involved in the transaction shall be notified as soon as practicable by
FINRA, and the party aggrieved by the action may appeal such action in
accordance with Rule 11894, unless the officer making the determination
also determines that the number of the affected transactions is such
that immediate finality is necessary to maintain a fair and orderly
market and to protect investors and the public interest, and further
provided that rulings made by FINRA in conjunction with one or more
other self-regulatory organizations are not appealable. Consistent with
the proposed structural changes to the Rule described above, FINRA
proposes to amend paragraph (a)(2) to remove the limitation on appeals
where the officer determines that the number of affected transactions
is such that immediate finality is necessary, and to add a limitation
on appeals where the decision is made by an officer under Supplementary
Material .02 of FINRA Rule 11892 regarding transactions that occurred
outside of the applicable Price Bands disseminated pursuant to the LULD
Plan.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In connection with these proposed changes, FINRA is also
proposing conforming edits to paragraph (a) of FINRA Rule 11894
(Review by the Uniform Practice Code (``UPC'') Committee, which
includes parallel provisions relating to the availability of
appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securities Subject To Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
    FINRA proposes to renumber Supplementary Material .03 as
Supplementary Material .02 based on the proposal to eliminate existing
paragraph Supplementary Material .02, and to rename new Supplementary
Material .02 to address transactions occurring outside of LULD price
bands. Given that proposed paragraph (b)(1) defines the LULD Plan,
FINRA also proposes to eliminate redundant language from proposed
Supplementary Material .02. Finally, FINRA also proposes to update
references to the LULD Plan and price bands so that they are uniform
throughout the Rule, to update rule references throughout the paragraph
to conform to the structural changes to the Rule described above, and
to renumber paragraphs (b) and (c) of Supplementary Material .02 to
paragraphs (a) and (b) given the proposed deletion of existing
paragraph (a).
Multi-Day Event and Trading Halts
    FINRA proposes to renumber paragraphs (c) and (d) to paragraphs (d)
and (e), respectively, based on the proposal to add new paragraph (c).
Additionally, FINRA proposes to modify the text of both paragraphs to
reference the percentage parameters as well as the numerical
guidelines. Specifically, the existing text of proposed paragraphs (d)
and (e) provides that any action taken in connection with this
paragraph will be taken without regard to the numerical guidelines set
forth in this Rule. FINRA proposes to amend the rule text to provide
that any action taken in connection with this paragraph will be taken
without regard to the percentage parameters or numerical guidelines set
forth in this Rule, with the percentage parameters being applicable to
an NMS stock subject to the LULD Plan and the numerical guidelines
being applicable to an NMS stock not subject to the LULD Plan.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change on
October 1, 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\30\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the purpose section of this proposed rule change,
the current pilot was implemented following the Flash Crash to bring
greater transparency to the process for conducting clearly erroneous
reviews, and to help assure that the review process is based on clear,
objective, and consistent rules across the U.S. equities markets. FINRA
believes that the amended clearly erroneous rules have been successful
in that regard and have thus furthered fair and orderly markets.
Specifically, FINRA believes that the pilot has successfully ensured
that such reviews are conducted based on objective and consistent
standards across SROs and has therefore afforded greater certainty to
members and investors. FINRA therefore believes that making the current
pilot a permanent program is appropriate so that equities market
participants can continue to reap the benefits of a clear, objective,
and transparent process for conducting clearly erroneous reviews. In
addition, FINRA understands that the U.S. equities exchanges have or
will also file largely identical proposals to make their respective
clearly erroneous pilots permanent. FINRA therefore believes that the
proposed rule change would promote transparency and uniformity across
markets concerning review of transactions as clearly erroneous and
would also help assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades
across the U.S. equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly
markets, the protection of investors, and the public interest.
    Similarly, FINRA believes that it is consistent with just and
equitable principles of trade to limit the availability of clearly
erroneous review during normal market hours. The LULD Plan was approved
by the Commission to operate on a permanent rather than pilot basis. As
a number of market participants have noted, the LULD Plan provides
protections that ensure that investors' orders are not executed at
prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. Further, amendments to
the LULD Plan approved in Amendment Eighteen serve to ensure that the
price bands established by the LULD Plan are ``appropriately tailored
to prevent trades that are so far from current market prices that they
would be viewed as having been executed in error.'' \31\ Thus, FINRA
believes that clearly erroneous review should only be necessary in very
limited circumstances during normal market hours. Specifically, such
review would only be necessary in instances where a transaction was not
subject to the LULD Plan, or was the result of some form of systems
issue, as detailed in the purpose section of this proposed rule change.
Additionally, in narrow circumstances where the transaction was subject
to the LULD Plan, a clearly erroneous review would be available in the
case of (1) a corporate action or new issue or (2) a security that
enters a trading pause pursuant to LULD and resumes trading without an
auction, where the reference price is determined to be erroneous by a
FINRA officer because it clearly deviated from the theoretical value of
the security. Thus, eliminating clearly erroneous review in all other
instances will serve to increase certainty for members and investors
that trades executed during normal market hours would typically stand
and would not be subject to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Amendment Eighteen, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the fact that clearly erroneous review would largely be
limited to transactions that were not subject to the LULD Plan, FINRA
also believes that it

is necessary to change the parameters used to determine whether a trade
is clearly erroneous. Specifically, due to the different parameters
currently used for clearly erroneous review and for determining price
bands, it is possible that a trade that would have been permitted to
execute within the price bands would later be deemed clearly erroneous,
if, for example, a systems issue prevented the dissemination of the
price bands. FINRA believes that this result is contrary to the
principle that trades within the price bands should stand, and has the
potential to cause investor confusion if trades that are properly
executed within the applicable parameters described in the LULD Plan
are later deemed erroneous. By using consistent parameters for clearly
erroneous reviews conducted during normal market hours and the
calculation of the price bands, FINRA believes that this change would
also serve to promote greater certainty with regards to when trades may
be deemed erroneous.
    Finally, the proposed rule change makes organizational updates to
FINRA Rule 11892, as well as minor updates and corrections to the Rule
to improve readability and clarity and conforming edits to FINRA Rule
11894.

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would
ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly
erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while also
amending those rules to provide greater certainty to members and
investors that trades will stand if executed during normal market hours
where the LULD Plan provides adequate protection against trading at
erroneous prices. FINRA understands that the national securities
exchanges have or will also file similar proposals, the substance of
which are largely identical to this proposed rule change. Thus, the
proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs
without implicating any competitive issues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \34\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \35\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. FINRA has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative on October 1, 2022. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow FINRA
to coordinate its implementation of the revised clearly erroneous
execution rules with the national securities exchanges, and will help
ensure consistency across the SROs.\36\ For this reason, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \36\ See SR-CboeBZX-2022-37 (July 8, 2022).
    \37\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2022-027 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-027. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-027 and should be submitted
on or before October 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21560 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 8377-8378]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Capacity Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2233-066.
    c. Date Filed: December 29, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Portland General Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Willamette Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Willamette Falls Project is located on the
Willamette River near the cities of West Linn and Oregon City, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Julie A. Keil, Director, Hydro Licensing,
Portland General Electric Company, 121 SW. Salmon Street, Portland,
Oregon 97204, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Ms. Linda Stewart at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: March 15, 2007.
    k. Description of Request: Portland General Electric Company
proposes to increase the flashboard height on the concrete dam along
the crest of Willamette Falls from 2 to 3.5 feet. The increase in
flashboard height would help maintain the river level at Willamette
Falls at an elevation which would allow the fish bypass systems to
operate at their intended design with full powerhouse operation.
Additionally, Portland General Electric Company proposes to install
temporary adult lamprey passage structures between flashboard sections,
extending downstream of the dam cap to the rock shelf to provide areas
for upstream adult lamprey passage.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information about this filing
may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov;

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may
also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. All documents
(original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3218 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33700-33702]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0425]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; I-90 Inner-Belt Bridge Demolition, Cuyahoga River,
Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Cuyahoga River while demolition of the old I-
90 Inner-belt bridge spanning the Cuyahoga River is undertaken. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from
the navigational hazards associated with the removal of a span across
the river.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective without actual notice
from June 12, 2014 through 6 a.m. on June 27, 2014. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on June 2, 2014,
until June 12, 2014, for any enforcement periods identified in this
rule that occur before June 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0425]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect vessels and mariners
from the hazards associated with the removal of a span across the
river.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 6 a.m. on June 2 through 6 a.m. on June 6, 2014, and on the
subsequent dates and times as necessary, demolition work on the old I-
90 Inner-belt bridge span crossing the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH,
is scheduled: 6 a.m. on June 11, 2014, through 6 a.m. on June 13, 2014;
6 a.m. on June 18, 2014, through 6 a.m. on June 20, 2014; and 6 a.m. on
June 25, 2014, through 6 a.m. on June 27, 2014. The bridge removal and
demolition work will involve of cutting and dropping 6' x 8' sections
of steel beams into the river and retrieving them via barge-mounted
extractor backhoe. These operations are to be conducted during hours
and dates stated above. During these enforcement periods, there will be
a continuous closure of a portion of the Cuyahoga River at MM 3.42 and
resultant stoppage of any traffic beyond MM 3.42 south to the terminus
of the maintained navigable channel. It has been determined that these
demolition operations will pose a significant risk to the maritime
public. Thus, under the authority within 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231, the
Captain of the Port, Sector Buffalo, has determined it necessary to
establish a temporary safety zone on the Cuyahoga River.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    As mentioned above, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined
that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
mariners and vessels during the old I-90 Inner-belt bridge demolition
operation. This safety zone regulation will be enforced from 6 a.m. on
June 2, 2014, through 6 a.m. on June 6, 2014, and on the following
subsequent dates and times as necessary: From 6 a.m. on June 11, 2014,
through 6 a.m. on June 13, 2014; 6 a.m. on June 18, 2014, through 6
a.m. on June 20, 2014, and 6 a.m. on June 25, 2014, through 6 a.m. on
June 27, 2014. The safety zone will encompass waters of the Cuyahoga
River in the vicinity of the old I-90 interstate bridge span crossing
over the Cuyahoga River at river mile marker 3.42. Specifically, the
safety zone will cover an area 200 yards upstream and 200 yards
downstream of the bridge from position 41[deg]29'10'' N,
081[deg]41'25'' W, (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a maximum initial duration of 96
hours with subsequent dates enforcement time limited to a maximum
duration of 48 hours and only if demolition has not been completed.
Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on commercial
traffic operating the navigable waters. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
a portion of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, from June 2-6,
2014; June 11-13, 2014; June 18-20, 2014; and June 25-27, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone has been developed and scheduled in cooperation with the
local marine industry and shore facilities to mitigate the impact on
scheduled commerce and will allow for the passage of vessels through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0425 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0425  Safety Zone; I-90 Inner-belt Bridge Demolition,
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. This safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of the old I-90 Inner-belt Bridge
crossing over the Cuyahoga River at river mile marker 3.42 within 200
yards upstream or 200 yards downstream of the bridge near position
41[deg]29'10'' N, 081[deg]41'25'' W, (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m.
on June 2, 2014, through 6 a.m. on June 6, 2014, and on the following
subsequent dates and times if necessary: From 6 a.m. on June 11, 2014,
through 6 a.m. on June 13, 2014; from 6 a.m. on June 18, 2014, through
6 a.m. on June 20, 2014; and from 6 a.m. on June 25, 2014, through 6
a.m. on June 27, 2014.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone need to contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 28, 2014.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2014-13767 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 234 (Thursday, December 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70059-70060]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1102; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Corsicana, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Corsicana, TX. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Powell non-
directional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates of the airport
would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1102/Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-24, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal
Airport, Corsicana, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at
this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-1102/
Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-24.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ``ADDRESSES'' section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of C. David
Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport, Corsicana, TX; removing the
Powell NDB and associated extensions from the airspace legal
description; removing the city associated with the airport in the
header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA
Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and
updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Powell NDB which provided guidance to instrument
procedures at this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Corsicana, TX [Amended]

C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 32[deg]01'41'' N, long. 96[deg]24'02'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana
Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 6, 2021.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-26638 Filed 12-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P