[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63651-63652]
[DOCID:fr09no07-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0023]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for
Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are eligible for
importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles that were not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the
United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles
that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and
that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety
standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform
to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 10,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the online instructions for submitting

comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov
.

    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) On that page, click on ``search for dockets.''
    (3) On the next page (http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number
and title shown at the heading of this document, and select
``Nonrulemaking'' from the drop-down menu in the Type field and
``Vehicle Import Eligibility'' in the drop-down menu in the Sub-Type
field.
    (4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may
download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents,
instead of the word processing documents, the ``pdf'' versions of the
documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment
closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the
Docket for new material.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under
49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor
vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Barry Taylor Enterprises of Richmond, California (BTE)(Registered
Importer 01-280) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are eligible for
importation into the United States. The vehicles which BTE believes are
substantially similar are 2001 Chevrolet

Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles that were manufactured for sale
in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming
to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified
2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles to their U.S.-
certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially
similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    BTE submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger
vehicles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same
manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being
readily altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2001
Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are identical to their
U.S.-certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard
Nos. 101 Controls and Displays, 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 113 Hood Latch System, 114 Theft
Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-Operated Window,
Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
Other than Passenger Cars, 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor
Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, 124 Accelerator Control Systems,
135 Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash Protection, 210
Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion,
225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and
302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner additionally states that the vehicle identification
plates affixed to the vehicles meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part
565.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Inspection of all vehicles
and installation, on vehicles that are not already so equipped, of
U.S.-model components to meet the requirements of this standard.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 5, 2007.
Harry Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-21967 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39535-39537]
[DOCID:fr09jy10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0316]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Adverse Event Pilot Program for Medical Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the continuation of a pilot
project to evaluate the electronic collection of the 3500A Form for
adverse events related to the use of medical products to obtain data
from user facilities participating in the Medical Product Safety
Network (MedSun). Additionally, the electronic form will include
hospital profile information and several other questions related to the
use of medical products. It will no longer contain the page called
Device-Safety Exchange (DS-X) (formerly called M-Den), which was a
moderated site where MedSun members shared information with each other.
This will be replaced by a page where questions about possible emerging

signals will be asked of the MedSun sites.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Adverse Event Pilot Program for Medical Products--21 U.S.C. 360(i) (OMB
Control Number 0910-0471)--Extension

    Under section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 360(i)), FDA is authorized to require: Manufacturers to
report medical device related deaths, serious injuries, and
malfunctions; and user facilities to report device-related deaths
directly to manufacturers and FDA, and to report serious injuries to
the manufacturer. Section 213 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997
(FDAMA), amended section 519(b) of the act relating to mandatory
reporting by user facilities of deaths and serious injuries and serious
illnesses associated with the use of medical devices. This amendment
legislated the replacement of universal user facility reporting by a
system that is limited to a ``* * * subset of user facilities that
constitutes a representative profile of user reports'' for device
related deaths and serious injuries. This amendment is reflected in
section 519(b)(5)(A) of the act. The current universal reporting system
remains in place during the pilot stages of the new program, and until
FDA implements the new national system by regulation. This legislation
provides FDA with the opportunity to design and implement a national
surveillance network, composed of well-trained clinical facilities, to
provide high quality data on medical devices in clinical use. This
system is called MedSun.
    FDA is continuing to conduct a pilot of the MedSun system before
the agency issues a regulation to change from universal mandatory
reporting for medical device user facilities to reporting by a
representative sample of facilities. This data collection has been
ongoing since February 20, 2002, and this notice is for continuation of
this data collection.
    FDA is seeking OMB clearance to continue to use electronic data
collection to obtain the information on the 3500A Form related to
medical devices and tissue products from the user facilities
participating in MedSun, to obtain a demographic profile of the
facilities, and to pilot additional questions which will permit FDA to
better understand the cause of reported adverse events. During the
pilot program, participants will be asked to complete an annual outcome
measures form, as a Customer/Partner Service Survey (approved under OMB
control number 0910-0360) to aid FDA in evaluating the effectiveness of
the program. Participation in this pilot is voluntary and currently
includes 400 facilities. The use of an interactive electronic data
collection system is easier and more efficient for the participating
user facilities to use than the alternative paper system.
    In addition to collecting data on the electronic adverse event
report form, MedSun also is proposing to collect additional information
from participating sites about reported problems emerging from the
MedSun Network hospitals. This data collection is also voluntary, and
will be collected on the same Web site as the report information. This
will replace the Device-Safety Exchange (DS-X). The burden to respond
to these questions will take the same time as that used for DS-X, 30
minutes.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual Frequency       Total Annual          Hours per
                     Activity                       No. of Respondents      per Response           Responses           Response              Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities participating in the electronic                         400                    15               6,000                .75                4,500
 reporting of adverse events programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities responding to emerging signal questions                 300                    10               3,000                .50                1,500
 (not used by all sites)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                               ..................  ....................  ..................  ..................               6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The total burden hours for MedSun and emerging signal questions
equals 6,000 hours (4,500 for MedSun and 1,500 for emerging signals).
    The burden estimate for the electronic reporting of adverse events
is based on the number of facilities currently participating in MedSun
(400). FDA estimates an average of 15 reports per site annually. This
estimate is based on MedSun working to promote reporting in general
from the sites, as well as promoting reporting from specific parts of
the hospitals, such as the pediatric intensive care units,
electrophysiology laboratories, and the hospital laboratories.
    The burden estimate for the emerging signal portion of MedSun is
based on the assumption that not all sites will use this part of the
software each time questions are asked, because not all sites will use
the device in question.

    Dated: July 1, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-16807 Filed 7-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56960-56962]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22398]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70357; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 1014

September 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 August 30, 2013, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 1014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1014, entitled
``Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations,'' by expanding the
list of violations eligible for disposition under Exchange Rule 1014 in
order to improve the consistency of the Exchange Rule 1014 with the
rules of other options exchanges.
    Exchange Rule 1014 promotes compliance with select rules and helps
reduce the number and extent of violations of those rules committed by
Members and associated persons. Exchange Rule 1014 allows the Exchange
to promptly impose a limited but meaningful financial penalty soon
after a rule violation is detected. The prompt imposition of a
financial penalty helps to quickly educate and improve the conduct of
Members and associated persons that have engaged in inadvertent or
otherwise minor violations of the Exchange's Rules.
    The proposed changes would allow the Exchange to impose fines
ranging from $500 to $5,000. By promptly imposing a meaningful
financial penalty for such violations, Exchange Rule 1014 focuses on
correcting conduct before it gives rise to more serious enforcement
action. As discussed above, Exchange Rule 1014 provides a reasonable
means of addressing rule violations that do not necessarily rise to the
level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while also
providing a greater flexibility in handling certain violations.
Adopting a provision that would allow the Exchange to sanction
violators under Exchange Rule 1014 by no means minimizes the importance
of compliance with these rules. The Exchange believes that the
violation of any of its Rules is a serious matter. The addition of a
sanction under Exchange Rule 1014 simply serves to add an additional
method for disciplining violators of the additional Rules. The Exchange
will continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make its
determination, on a case by case basis, whether a violation of these
additional Rules should be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings.
    The Exchange proposes to incorporate five additional violations
into Exchange Rule 1014. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
incorporate into Exchange Rule 1014 additional violations regarding:
(i) Exercise limits; (ii) reports related to position limits; (iii)
trading in restricted classes; (iv) Market Maker

continuous quoting requirements; and (v) amending Form U4, Form U5, and
Form BD.
Exercise Limits
    MIAX Rule 309 generally prohibits Members from exceeding certain
exercise limits.\3\ MIAX is proposing to incorporate violations
consisting of exceeding such exercise limits into the Exchange Rule
1014 under Proposed Exchange Rule 1014(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MIAX Rule 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to implement a fine of $500 for the first
violation of Rule 309 within a twenty-four month rolling period. A
second violation within the rolling twenty-four month period would be
allocated a $1,000 fine, a third violation a $2,500 fine, and a fourth
violation a $5,000 fine. Any subsequent violations within the rolling
twenty-four month period would be allocated a $5,000 fine. MIAX notes
that this proposal is consistent with rules in place at the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reports Related to Position Limits
    MIAX Rule 310 requires Members to file with the Exchange reports
once certain positional thresholds are exceeded.\5\ MIAX is proposing
to incorporate violations consisting of the failure to file such
position limit reports into Exchange Rule 1014 under Proposed Exchange
Rule 1014(d)(11). All the options exchanges, including MIAX, have
entered into a plan pursuant to Rule 17d-2 of the Act (the ``Options
Market Surveillance Plan'' or the ``Plan'') under which the exchanges
have agreed to allocate regulatory responsibility for certain rules
common to all options exchanges. The common rules relate to compliance
with position limits, the use of position limit exemptions and the
reporting of large options positions. Adding Rule 310 to Exchange Rule
1014 makes Exchange Rule 1014 more consistent with rules of other self-
regulatory organizations, including with respect to rules that are
classified as common rules pursuant to the Options Market Surveillance
Plan. The Exchange believes that aspects of Exchange Rule 1014 with
respect to the handling of violations of rules that are common rules
pursuant to the Plan should be consistent with the other options
exchanges that are parties to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See MIAX Rule 310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to implement a fine of $500 for the first
violation of Rule 310 within a twenty-four month rolling period. A
second violation within the rolling twenty-four month period would be
allocated a $1,000 fine and a third violation a $2,500 fine. Any
subsequent violations within the rolling twenty-four month period would
be allocated a $5,000 fine. MIAX notes that this proposal is consistent
with the rules in place at the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See BATS Exchange Rule 25.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading in Restricted Classes
    MIAX Rule 403 provides that MIAX may prohibit any opening purchase
transactions in series of options previously opened to the extent it
deems such action necessary or appropriate.\7\ MIAX is proposing to
incorporate violations related to trading in restricted classes into
Exchange Rule 1014 under Proposed Exchange Rule 1014(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MIAX Rule 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to implement a fine of $500 for the first
violation within a twenty-four month rolling period. A second violation
within the rolling twenty-four month period would be allocated a $2,500
fine and a third violation a $5,000 fine. Any subsequent violations
within the rolling twenty-four month period would become subject to
formal disciplinary action under Exchange Rule 1003 or 1004. MIAX notes
that this proposal is consistent with rules in place at the CBOE, NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and NYSE MKT, Inc. (``NYSE MKT'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(11); NYSE Arca Rule 10.12(h)(22);
NYSE MKT Rule 476A Supp. Mat. Part 1C(i)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Continuous Quoting Obligations
    MIAX Rule 604(e) requires each class of Market Maker to meet a
specific continuous quoting threshold.\9\ MIAX is proposing to
incorporate violations of these continuous quoting obligations into
Exchange Rule 1014 under Exchange Rule 1014(d)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See MIAX Rule 604(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to issue a Letter of Caution for the first
violation within a twenty-four month rolling period. Any subsequent
offense would be subject to a $300 fine charged per day. MIAX notes
that this proposal is consistent with rules in place at the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Market (``BX Options''),
and BATS Options.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Chapter X, Section 7(c) of NOM Rules; Chapter X,
Section 7(c) of BX Options Rules; and BATS Exchange Rule 25.3(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amending Form U4, Form U5, and Form BD
    Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,\11\ and the rules
promulgated thereunder, and applicable Exchange Rules, Members are
required to file and amend to keep current the applicable Form U4,\12\
Form U5,\13\ or Form BD.\14\ Amendments shall be made no later than
thirty (30) days after the filer knew or should have known of the need
for the amendment. MIAX is proposing to incorporate the failure to make
a timely amendment to the applicable Form U4, Form U5, or Form BD into
Exchange Rule 1014 under Proposed Exchange Rule 1014(d)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o.
    \12\ See MIAX Rules 1301(b) and 1302(c).
    \13\ See MIAX Rules 1301(c) and 1303.
    \14\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX is proposing to implement a fine of $500 for the first
violation within a twelve month rolling period. A second violation
within the rolling twelve month period would be allocated a $1,000 fine
and a third violation a $2,000 fine. Any subsequent violations within
the rolling twelve month period would become subject to formal
disciplinary action under Exchange Rule 1003 or 1004. MIAX notes that
this proposal is consistent with rules in place at the NOM, BX Options,
and BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX Options'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Chapter X, Section 7(k) of NOM Rules; Chapter X,
Section 7(k) of BX Options Rules; BOX Options Rule 12140(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the statute in that it
directly addresses fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by
MIAX Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(1) \18\ of the Act to enforce
compliance by its Members to the Exchange's Rules,

Section b(b)(6) \19\ of the Act to appropriately discipline Members of
the Exchange's Rules, and Section 6(b)(7) \20\ of the Act to provide a
fair procedure of disciplining Members as the proposal will strengthen
its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization and reinforce its surveillance and enforcement
functions. Additionally, this proposed rule change will promote
consistency with rules of other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal relates to the
Exchange's role and responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization
and the manner in which it disciplines its Members and associated
persons for violations of its Rules. In the unlikely event that Members
will determine where to send options orders based on the type of
disciplinary program in place at an options exchange, the expansion of
Exchange Rule 1014 will lessen the impact on competition by making
Exchange Rule 1014 more consistent with rules at the other options
exchanges.

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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \22\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2013-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2013-42. 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 offices 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-MIAX-2013-42,
and should be submitted on or before October 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22398 Filed 9-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18238-18240]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0148]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; SFPD Training Safety Zone; San Francisco Bay, San
Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Hunters Point in San
Francisco, CA in support of the San Francisco Police Department's
maritime interdiction training exercises. This safety zone is
established to ensure the safety of the exercise participants and
mariners transiting the area. Unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the
safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective with actual notice from March 14, 2013,
until March 26, 2013. This rule is effective in the Federal Register
from March 26, 2013 until April 19, 2013. This rule will be enforced
from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on March 14, 2013, from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on
March 15, 2013, and from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on April 15, 2013, through
April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0148. 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
temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade William Hawn,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
SFPD San Francisco Police Department
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (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 publishing an NPRM would be impracticable.
The Coast Guard received notification of the event on March 7, 2013,
and the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be
completed. Law enforcement officers will be conducting maritime
interdiction operations that require freedom of movement in a defined
area. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the law
enforcement officers participating in the training exercises as well as
provide for the safety of vessels transiting near the training area.
Because the Coast Guard received late notice and the safety concerns
noted, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM for this safety zone.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the reasons stated above,
delaying the effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed temporary rule is the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish
safety zones (33 U.S.C sections 1221 et seq.).
    San Francisco Police Department will host the SFPD Training Safety
Zone on March 14 and March 15, 2013, and from April 15 through April
19, 2013, in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay off of
Hunters Point in San Francisco, CA. This safety zone establishes a
temporary restricted area on the water within a box connecting the
following points: 37[deg]43'45'' N, 122[deg]20'48'' W; 37[deg]43'45''
N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; 37[deg]42'12'' N, 122[deg]20'48'' W;
37[deg]42'12'' N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; thence back to the point of origin
(NAD 83). The safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted
area on the waters surrounding the training exercise.
    This restricted area is necessary to provide freedom of movement
for law enforcement officers conducting maritime interdiction training
and to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters
around the SFPD's maritime interdiction training exercises. The SFPD
Training Safety

Zone establishes a temporary restricted area on the waters of the San
Francisco Bay off of Hunters Point within a box connecting the
following points: 37[deg]43'45'' N, 122[deg]20'48'' W; 37[deg]43'45''
N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; 37[deg]42'12'' N, 122[deg]20'48'' W;
37[deg]42'12'' N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; thence back to the point of origin
(NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on
March 14, 2013, from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on March 15, 2013, and from 8
a.m. until 5 p.m. on April 15, 2013, through 19, 2013. At the
conclusion of the training exercises the safety zone shall terminate.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the training exercise. Except for persons
or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or
vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations
are needed to keep vessels away from the vicinity of the training
exercise to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers conducting
training and other mariners transiting the area.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of 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 that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule does not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is
limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic
area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters
encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be
significant because the local waterway users will be notified via
public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will
result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are
waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities.

2. 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 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 may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the
vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via 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,
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 calls for no 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 State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it 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 concluded
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 a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) and
35(b) 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, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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-T11-551 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-551  Safety zone; SFPD Training Safety Zone, San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone will encompass the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Hunters Point within a
box connecting the following points: 37[deg]43'45'' N, 122[deg]20'48''
W; 37[deg]43'45'' N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; 37[deg]42'12'' N,
122[deg]20'48'' W; 37[deg]42'12'' N, 122[deg]19'33'' W; thence back to
the point of origin, as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Chart 18649.
    (b) Enforcement Period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on March 14, 2013,
from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on March 15, 2013, and from 8 a.m. until 5
p.m. on April 15, 2013, through April 19, 2013. The Captain of the Port
San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods
during which this zone will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR
165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 13, 2013
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard. Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2013-06813 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P