[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30022-30023]
[FR Doc No: E9-14814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0362; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-10]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Arlington, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at
Arlington, TX. Establishment of an air traffic control tower at
Arlington Municipal Airport has made this action necessary for the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft
operations at Arlington Municipal Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 10,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0362/Airspace Docket No. 09-
ASW-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
on the Internet at http://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 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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-2009-0362/
Airspace Docket No. 09-ASW-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by establishing Class D airspace from the surface up
to but not including 2,000 feet MSL for IFR operations at Arlington
Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX. The area would be depicted on
appropriate aeronautical charts.

    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, 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 establish
controlled airspace at Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, 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;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Arlington, TX [New]

Arlington Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 32[deg]39'50'' N., long. 97[deg]05'39'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not
including 2,000 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Arlington
Municipal Airport, excluding the portion east of a line between lat.
32[deg]43'48'' N.; long. 97[deg]05'06'' W.; and lat. 32[deg]38'10''
N.; long. 97[deg]3'26'' W., and lat. 32[deg]36'16'' N.; long.
97[deg]03'31'' W., excluding that airspace within the Dallas/Fort
Worth, TX, Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 16, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-14814 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 56064]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25700]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Commission will host the SEC Government-Business Forum on Small
Business Capital Formation on Thursday, November 30, 2017, beginning at
9:00 a.m. Central Time.

PLACE: The forum will be held at the AT&T Executive Education and
Conference Center on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin,
1900 University Ave., Austin, TX 78705.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The forum will be open to the public and will
include remarks by SEC Commissioners and a panel discussion that
Commissioners may attend. The panel discussion will explore how capital
formation options are working for small businesses, including small
businesses in Texas. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 22, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25700 Filed 11-22-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25972-25976]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72046; File No. SR-NSX-2014-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Exchange Rule 11.19
Entitled ``Clearly Erroneous Executions'' To Add Provisions Regarding
Executions Based on Incorrect or Grossly Misinterpreted Issuance
Information and Executions Occurring After a Trading Halt Has Been
Declared

April 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 17, 2014, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX[supreg]''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed
rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 11.19 entitled ``Clearly
Erroneous Executions'' to add new paragraphs (k) and (l) and to amend
paragraph (j) to make certain conforming changes based on the addition
of these new paragraphs.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to add new paragraph (k) to Exchange
Rule 11.19 to provide the Exchange with authority to nullify
transactions that were effected based on the same fundamentally
incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information even if such
transactions occur over a period of several days, as further described
below. An example of fundamentally incorrect and grossly misinterpreted
issuance information that led to a severe valuation error is included
below for illustrative purposes.
    The Exchange also proposes to add new paragraph (l) to Rule 11.19
to make clear that in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the
operation of the electronic communications and trading facilities of
the Exchange, another market center or responsible single plan
processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a regulatory
trading halt, suspension or pause (hereafter generally referred to as a
``trading halt'' for ease of reference), the Exchange will nullify any
transaction that occurs after the primary listing market for a security
declares a trading

halt with respect to such security. In the event a trading halt is
declared, then prematurely lifted in error, and then re-instituted,
proposed paragraph (l) would also result in nullification of any
transactions that occur before the official, final end of the trading
halt according to the primary listing market.
    The Exchange also proposes to change certain cross-references in
Rule 11.19, due to the addition of paragraphs (k) and (l).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to update cross-references in
existing paragraph (j) of Rule 11.19 in order to make clear that the
provisions of paragraph (j) do not alter the application of other
provisions of Rule 11.19, including new paragraphs (k) and (l).
Background
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Rule 11.19 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly
erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or
more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in
the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary
listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before the
trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\3\ The Exchange also
adopted additional changes to Rule 11.19 that reduced the ability of
the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in Rule
11.19,\4\ and in 2013, adopted a provision designed to address the
operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan'').\5\ In October 2013, the Exchange
removed the specific provisions related to individual stock trading
pauses and extended to April 8, 2014 the pilot program applicable to
certain provisions of Rule 11.19.\6\ Most recently, the Exchange
extended the pilot program applicable to certain provisions of Rule
11.19 to coincide with the pilot period for the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan, including any extensions to the pilot period for the Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (Sept. 10, 2010); 75 FR
56613 (Sept. 16, 2010); SR-NSX-2010-07.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 68803 (February 1, 2013), 78 FR
9078 (February 7, 2013) (SR-NSX-2013-06); Exchange Act Release No.
67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-
Limit Down Release''); See also NSX Rule 11.19(j).
    \6\ Paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (g), (h) and (j) of Rule 11.19 are
currently subject to a pilot program. See Exchange Act Release No.
70589 (October 1, 2013); 78 FR 62782 (October 22, 2013) (SR-NSX-
2013-19).
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 71797 (March 25, 2014); 79 FR
18108 (March 31, 2014) (SR-NSX-2014-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, similar to other provisions added in recent years, as
described above, both paragraph (k) and paragraph (l) would be subject
to the pilot period, and thus, would last for a period to coincide with
the pilot period for the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, including any
extensions to the pilot period for the Plan.
Executions Based on Incorrect or Grossly Misinterpreted Issuance
Information
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new provision, paragraph (k), to
Rule 11.19, which would provide that 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
(e.g., with respect to a stock split or corporate dividend) resulting
in a severe valuation error for all such transactions (the ``Event'').
    As proposed, an Officer of the Exchange or senior level employee
designee, acting on his or her own motion, would be required to take
action to declare all transactions that occurred during the Event null
and void not later than the start of trading on the day following the
last transaction in the Event. If trading in the security is halted
before the valuation error is corrected, the Officer of the Exchange or
senior level employee designee would be required to take action to
declare all transactions that occurred during the Event null and void
prior to the resumption of trading. The Exchange proposes to make clear
that no action can be taken pursuant to proposed paragraph (k) with
respect to any transactions that have reached settlement date for the
security or that result from an initial public offering of a security.
The Exchange believes that declaring a trade null and void after
settlement date would be complex to administer and unfair to the
affected parties. The Exchange also believes that excluding IPOs from
the proposed rule will ensure that transactions in a new security for
which there is no benchmark information are not called into question,
as it is the IPO process itself, including the extensive public
disclosure associated with IPOs that is intended to drive price
formation.
    Further, the Exchange proposes that to the extent transactions
related to an Event occur on one or more other market centers, the
Exchange will promptly coordinate with such other market center(s) to
ensure consistent treatment of the transactions related to the Event,
if practicable. The Exchange also proposes to state in the Rule that
any action taken in connection with paragraph (k) will be taken without
regard to the Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of
Rule 11.19. In particular, the Exchange believes that there could be
scenarios where there are erroneous transactions related to an Event
that do not meet applicable Numerical Guidelines but that are, upon
review, clearly erroneous. One example of a situation that could occur
is a corporate action, such as a stock split, that results in the
dissemination of fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted
issuance information and leads to erroneous transactions at a price
that is close to the price at which the security was previously
trading. Even if such trading is consistent with prior trading activity
for the security, and thus would not meet applicable Numerical
Guidelines, the Exchange would have the authority to nullify such
transactions if they were affected based on the same fundamentally
incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information and there was
a severe valuation error as a result (i.e., although the security
should be trading at a price further away from its previous range, due
to fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance
information with respect to the corporate action the security continues
to trade at a price that does not meet applicable Numerical
Guidelines).
    The Exchange also proposes to include a provision, as it does in
many other sub-paragraphs of Rule 11.19, stating that each Equity
Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holder involved in a transaction subject to
proposed paragraph (k) shall be notified as soon as practicable by the
Exchange, and that the party aggrieved by the action may appeal such
action in accordance with Exchange Rule 11.19(e)(2).
    In particular, the Exchange believes it is necessary to have
authority to nullify trades that occur in an event similar to an event
involving an exchange offer (``Exchange Offer'') made by U.S. Bancorp
on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') in 2010 in which there were a
series of executions based on incorrect or grossly misinterpreted
issuance information. As a result of such information, the securities
traded at severely dislocated prices. At the time, the NYSE filed an
emergency rule

filing in order to respond to that event.\8\ With the filing the NYSE
interpreted the rule applicable to clearly erroneous executions as
permitting the NYSE to nullify all trades resulting after the Exchange
Offer at severely dislocated prices.\9\ The Exchange believes it is
important to have in place a rule to break such trades if an event like
the U.S. Bancorp event occurs again in the future. The U.S. Bancorp
event is described in further detail below and is intended to be
illustrative of the manner in which the Exchange proposes to utilize
proposed paragraph (k), if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62609 (July 30, 2010),
75 FR 47327 (August 5, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-55).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2010, U.S. Bancorp commenced an offer to exchange up to
1,250,000 Depositary Shares, each representing a 1/100 interest in a
share of Series A Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, $100,000
liquidation preference per share (the ``Depositary Shares'') for any
and all of the 1,250,000 outstanding 6.189% Fixed-to-Floating Rate
Normal ITS issued by U.S. Bancorp Capital IX, each with a liquidation
amount of $1,000 (the ``Normal ITS''). The Depositary Shares were
approved for listing on the NYSE under the symbol USB PRA. On June 11,
2010, the NYSE opened the shares on a quote, but trading did not
commence until June 16, 2010 at prices in the range of $79.00 per
share. There were additional executions on the NYSE in that price range
on June 17 and 18, 2010. On June 18, 2010, NYSE staff learned that the
prices at which trades had executed were not consistent with the value
of the security, which was closer to an $800 price. Upon learning of
the pricing disparity, NYSE immediately halted trading in the
Depositary Shares on all markets and alerted U.S. Bancorp and other
exchanges that traded the Depositary Shares of the pricing discrepancy.
    In order to address the situation, the NYSE filed a proposal to
interpret its existing clearly erroneous execution rule such that the
trading in Depository Shares from June 16 to June 18 constituted a
single event because that trading was based on incorrect or grossly
misinterpreted issuance information that resulted in severe price
dislocation (the ``U.S. Bancorp Event'').\10\ Because the Depository
Shares were halted before the price of the Depository Shares ceased to
be dislocated, and remain halted, the NYSE was able to review trading
in Depository Shares and declare null and void all trading in the U.S.
Bancorp Event before the security resumed trading. Rather than filing a
proposal in response to a similar event happening again, the Exchange
proposes to add paragraph (k) in order to nullify transactions
consistent with the description of the proposed Rule above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executions After a Trading Halt Has Been Declared
    The Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (l) to Rule 11.19 to
make clear that in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the
operation of the electronic communications and trading facilities of
the Exchange, another market center or responsible single plan
processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a trading
halt, the Exchange will nullify any transaction that occurs after the
primary listing market for a security declares a trading halt and
before such trading halt with respect to such security has officially
ended according to the primary listing market. In addition, proposed
paragraph (l) will make clear that in the event a trading halt is
declared, then prematurely lifted in error and then re-instituted, the
Exchange will nullify transactions that occur before the official,
final end of the trading halt according to the primary listing market.
    As with other provisions in Rule 11.19, including proposed
paragraph (k) as discussed above, the authority to nullify transactions
pursuant to paragraph (l) would be vested in an Officer of the Exchange
or other senior level employee designee, acting on his or her own
motion. Any action taken in connection with paragraph (l) would be
taken in a timely fashion, generally within thirty (30) minutes of the
detection of the erroneous transaction and in no circumstances later
than the start of Regular Trading Hours \11\ on the trading day
following the date of the execution(s) under review. The Exchange also
proposes to specify that any action taken in connection with proposed
paragraph (l) will be taken without regard to the Numerical Guidelines
set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 11.19. The Exchange believes it
is appropriate to act to nullify transactions pursuant to proposed
paragraph (l) without regard to applicable Numerical Guidelines because
in the situations covered by paragraph (l), such transactions should
not have occurred in the first instance, and thus, their nullification
does not put parties in any different position than they should have
been. The Exchange also believes that the certainty that the proposed
rule provides is critical in situations involving trading halts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Regular Trading Hours are defined in Exchange Rule 1.5 as
the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it has proposed for paragraph (k) described above, the Exchange
also proposes to include a provision stating that each ETP Holder
involved in a transaction subject to proposed paragraph (l) shall be
notified as soon as practicable by the Exchange, and that the party
aggrieved by the action may appeal such action in accordance with
Exchange Rule 11.19(e)(2).
    The Exchange notes that trading in a security is typically halted
immediately on the Exchange when the primary listing market issues a
trading halt in such security. However, in certain circumstances, due
to a technical issue related to the transmission or receipt of the
electronic message instituting such trading halt or due to other
extraordinary circumstances, executions can occur on the Exchange
following the declaration of such a trading halt. Similarly, although
rare, the Exchange has witnessed scenarios where due to extraordinary
circumstances a trading halt is declared, then prematurely lifted in
error and then re-instituted. It is these types of extraordinary
circumstances that the Exchange believes require certainty, and thus,
the Exchange believes it necessary to make clear that in such a
circumstance any transactions after a trading halt has been declared
will be nullified. In the event that a trading halt is declared as of a
future time (i.e., if the primary listing exchange declares a trading
halt as of a specific, future time in order to ensure coordination
among market participants), the Exchange would only nullify
transactions occurring after the time the trading halt was supposed to
be in place until the official end of the trading halt according to the
primary listing market.
    The Exchange also notes that it currently has authority pursuant to
paragraph (g) of Rule 11.19 to review and nullify transactions that
arise during a disruption or malfunction in the operation of any
electronic communications and trading facilities of the Exchange.
Further, paragraph (g) of Rule 11.19 gives the Exchange authority to
use a lower numerical guideline than is set forth in paragraph (c)(1)
of the Rule when necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and to
protect investors and the public interest. Thus, while the Exchange
believes that paragraph (g) does give the Exchange the authority to
nullify transactions occurring when there is an Exchange

technical issue related to the transmission or receipt of the
electronic message instituting a trading halt or with respect to a
technical issue related to a prematurely lifted trading halt, the
Exchange believes that proposed paragraph (l) will provide appropriate
authority for the Exchange to nullify all such transactions whether or
not the systems problem occurs on the Exchange with respect to trading
halts and explicit clarity for market participants that such
transactions will be nullified. The Exchange believes that such
authority is appropriate because when relied upon the Exchange will be
cancelling trades that should not have occurred in the first instance.
Finally, the Exchange believes that such authority is appropriate
because a trading halt declared by the primary listing market is
indicative of an issue with respect to the applicable security or a
larger set of securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ because
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade and operate to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adopt a provision
granting it the authority to nullify trades that occur if an Event
similar to the U.S. Bancorp Event occurs again. The Exchange believes
that this provision will allow the Exchange to act in the event of such
a severe valuation error, that such an action would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and that the proposal is therefore
consistent with the Act. Similarly, the Exchange believes that adding a
provision allowing the Exchange to nullify transactions that occur when
a trading halt is declared, then prematurely lifted in error and then
reinstituted, and providing that in the event of any disruption or
malfunction in the operation of the electronic communications and
trading facilities of the Exchange, another market center or
responsible single plan processor in connection with the transmittal or
receipt of a trading halt the Exchange will nullify trades occurring
after a trading halt has been declared by the primary listing market
for the security, will help to avoid confusion among market
participants, which is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest and therefore consistent with the Act. The Exchange
further believes that the proposal is appropriate and consistent with
the Act because when relied upon the Exchange will be canceling trades
that should not have occurred in the first instance. The Exchange also
believes that the proposal is appropriate because a trading halt
declared by the primary listing market is indicative of an issue with
respect to the applicable security or a larger set of securities.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to update the cross-
references in existing paragraph (j) of Rule 11.19 to include new
paragraphs (k) and (l) is consistent with the Act because, as is the
case with respect to the current rule, this change makes clear that the
provisions of paragraph (j) do not alter the application of the other
provisions of Rule 11.19.
    The Exchange believes that the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') and other national securities exchanges are also
filing similar proposals to add provisions similar to the provisions
proposed by the Exchange above. Therefore, the proposal promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning treatment of transactions as
clearly erroneous. The proposed rule change would also help to assure
consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of
investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues. To the contrary, as noted above, the
Exchange believes FINRA and other national securities exchanges are
also filing similar proposals, and thus, that the proposal will help to
ensure consistency across market centers.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
written comments on the proposed rule change.

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

    The proposed rule change was filed with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Within 45 days of the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i)
as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will: (a) by order approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change; or (b) institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2014-08 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-NSX-2014-08. 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 available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NSX-2014-08, and should be submitted on or before May
27, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10282 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78725-78726]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-49-000.
    Applicants: TerraForm Private LLC, Meadow Creek Project Company
LLC, Goshen Phase II LLC, Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection LLC,
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC, Burley Butte Wind
Park, LLC, Golden Valley Wind Park, LLC, Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC,
Oregon Trail Wind Park, LLC, Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC,
Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC, Tuana Gulch Wind Park, LLC, Camp Reed
Wind Park, LLC, Payne's Ferry Wind Park, LLC, Salmon Falls Wind Park,
LLC, Yahoo Creek Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, Requests for Expedited Action, Waivers of Filing
Requirements and Confidential Treatment of Transaction Document of
TerraForm Private LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20151210-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/15.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-86-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Rate Schedule No. 217 Exhibit D,
Weed Control to be effective 12/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20151210-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-505-000.
    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: South Central MCN LLC
Wholesale Distribuition Agreements to be effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20151210-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-506-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., West Penn Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company,
Monongahela Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: West Penn et al submit two
IA Nos. 4160 & 4313 and ECSA No. 4314 to be effective 2/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20151211-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES16-10-000.
    Applicants: Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Short Term Debt
of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/10/15.
    Accession Number: 20151210-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES16-11-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authority To Issue and Pledge
Securities of Westar Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20151211-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ES16-12-000.
    Applicants: Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of Kansas Gas and
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20151211-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ES16-13-000.
    Applicants: Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of Kansas Gas and
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 12/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20151211-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ES16-14-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Application of Prairie Wind Transmission, LLC for
Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 12/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20151211-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31718 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65676-65677]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0956]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Tensaw River, Hurricane, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that
governs the CSX Railroad swing bridge across the Tensaw River mile
15.0, Hurricane, Baldwin County, AL. This bridge will open on signal if
at least ten-hours-notice is given. This rule is being changed because
there are infrequent requests to open the bridge. This change will
remove the drawbridge tender during daylight hours.

DATES: This rule is effective December 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-
2018-0965 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge
Administration Branch Chief; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On June 17, 2018, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tensaw River, Hurricane, AL
in the Federal Register 2019-12720. We received 0 comments on this
rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
    CSX requested to change the operating requirements for the CSX
railroad bridge across the Tensaw River mile 15.0, Hurricane, Baldwing
County, Alabama. This bridge currently opens according to 33 CFR part
117.113 and opens on signal; except that, from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. the
draw shall open on signal if at least eight-hours-notice is given. CSX
requested that the bridge open on signal if at least ten-hours-notice
is given at all times.
    This bridge spans the Tensaw River and is used by small
recreational boats, house boats, and a tour boat. The bridge has a
vertical clearance of 11 feet above mean high water in the closed to
vessel position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open to vessel
traffic position. There are few vessel movements through this bridge.
From July 2017 through February 2018 the bridge opened 52 times for
vessel passage. This equates to less than 7 times each month. Of these
openings 38 were made for recreational vessels, 16 were made for a tour
boat, 6 were made for house boats, and 2 were made for local law
enforcement vessels.
    This change allows CSX to align bridge tender operations with
daylight and night time hours and provide for the reasonable needs of
navigation.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    There were no comments on this rule change. The Coast Guard
provided a comment period of 30 days. Based on the infrequent times
that this bridge has opened for vessel traffic over eight months this
rule provides vessels with a reasonable ability to use the waterway. We
did not identified any impacts on marine navigation with this proposed
rule.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that
vessels can still open the draw and transit if advance notice is
provided. Those vessels with a vertical clearance requirement of less
than 11 feet above mean high water may transit the bridge at any time,
and the bridge will open in case of an emergency at any time. This
change to the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.113 meets
the reasonable needs of navigation.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    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, 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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures (series) which guide the Coast Guard
in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). We have made a determination that this action
is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review,
under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.113 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.113  Tensaw River.

    The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 15.0 at
Hurricane, shall open on signal if at least ten-hours-notice is given.
The draw shall open at the direction of the District Commander.

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
John P. Nadeau,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

    Editorial Note: This document was submitted to the Office of the
Federal Register on November 25, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-25977 Filed 11-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P