[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 70495]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.
Extension:
    Form F-X, OMB Control No. 3235-0379, SEC File No. 270-336.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form F-X (17 CFR 239.42) is used to appoint an agent for service of
process by Canadian issuers registering securities on Forms F-7, F-8,
F-9 or F-10 under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.),
or filing periodic reports on Form 40-F under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The information collected must be
filed with the Commission and is publicly available. We estimate that
it takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare Form F-X and
that the information is filed by approximately 161 respondents for a
total annual reporting burden of 322 hours (2 hours per response x 161
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the performance of the
functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 19, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28530 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


D 51 Appendix D 10. STORET Data for Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Date pH Hardness Alkalinity Ca Mg Ca: Mg Na K Cl SO4 NO3 TOC DOC Sulfide Embarrass River, MN 3/ 22/ 76 7 133 103 27 16 1.69 2.5 2 11 34 4/ 29/ 76 6.7 25.3 23 5.2 3 1.73 2.8 0.7 2.9 8.4 0.04 16 0.6 5/ 28/ 76 6.5 53 3.5 12 6/ 28/ 76 6.9 44 36 9.9 4.6 2.15 3.9 0.3 5 13 0.04 37 7/ 28/ 76 6.6 76 5.2 4.8 7.5 8/ 26/ 76 6.9 100 110 24 9.9 2.42 9 1 8.4 5.6 21 0.6 Means 6.8 75.58 66.83 14.26 8.38 2.00 4.55 1.00 5.93 13.42 0.04 24.67 0.60 max. 7 133 110 27 16 2.42 9 2 11 34 0.04 37 0.6 min. 6.5 25.3 23 5.2 3 1.69 2.5 0.3 2.9 5.6 0.04 16 0.6 S. Kawishiwi River, MN 10/ 16/ 75 6.4 21 14 4.9 2.1 2.33 1.3 0.4 0.5 4.4 0.01 12 0.2 11/ 6/ 75 6.9 24 19 5.5 2.5 2.20 1.2 0.4 0.6 4.1 12/ 11/ 75 39 23 10 3.4 2.94 1.4 0.4 1.5 0.2 1/ 9/ 76 6.6 29 24 6.2 3.2 1.94 1.6 0.8 2.3 7 2/ 4/ 76 6.3 24 20 5.2 2.7 1.93 1.7 0.6 0.9 6.3 0.16 16 0 3/ 9/ 76 6.9 23 23 5.7 2.2 2.59 1.5 0.5 0.9 4.9 1 4/ 23/ 76 6.6 14 8 3.4 1.3 2.62 0.9 0.4 0.7 4.8 0.2 5/ 25/ 76 6.8 16 11 4 1.5 2.67 0.9 0.4 0.7 4.8 6/ 25/ 76 6.6 16 1.1 3.3 1.8 7/ 23/ 76 6.7 19 1.2 4.4 0.5 Means 6.6 23.75 17.70 5.61 2.36 2.40 1.31 0.49 1.04 4.89 0.09 14.00 0.56 max. 6.9 39 24 10 3.4 2.94 1.7 0.8 2.3 7 0.16 16 1.8 min. 6.3 14 8 3.4 1.3 1.93 0.9 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.01 12 0 Colby Lake, MN LCY2 6/ 17/ 96 8.5 56 33 13 5.7 2.28 4.3 1.5 6.3 22 0.25 17 6/ 17/ 96 6.8 0.25 17 6/ 17/ 96 6.9 71 33 17 7 2.43 4.3 1.4 9.4 22 18 LCY1 6/ 17/ 96 6.8 54 33 12 5.8 2.07 3.9 1.4 6.6 26 0.3 16 6/ 17/ 96 6.8 16 6/ 17/ 96 6.5 41 34 11 3.2 3.44 3.6 1.3 6.8 22 0.33 17 6/ 17/ 96 7.4 83 39 21 7.3 2.88 7.8 52 0.18 Means 7.1 55.50 33.25 13.25 5.43 2.55 4.03 1.40 7.28 23.00 0.28 16.83 max. 8.5 71 34 17 7 3.44 4.3 1.5 9.4 26 0.33 18 min. 6.5 41 33 11 3.2 2.07 3.6 1.3 6.3 22 0.25 16 Cloquet Lake, MN 7/ 13/ 76 6.4 17 11 4 1.8 2.22 1.7 7.6 0 38 Lake One, MN 10/ 16/ 75 7.2 27 21 6.9 2.3 3.00 1.2 5.6 0.02 22 Greenwood Lake, MN 7/ 6/ 76 6.7 10 15 2.8 0.7 4.00 0.1 0.3 0.2 4.2 0 11 D 52


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 7894]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1127-000]

Calpine King City Cogen, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Calpine King City Cogen, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 19, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 27, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03885 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22698-22699]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9797]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-187-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 11, 2011, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046,
pursuant to its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-
000,\1\ filed an application in accordance to sections 157.205(b), and
157.208(f)(2) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) as amended, requesting to increase the pipeline capacity and
maximum operating pressure of its Mobile Bay Lateral (Index 880) in
Mobile County, Alabama, all as more fully set forth in the application,
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 20 FERC ] 62,416 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gulf South proposes to increase the south-bound capacity of its
Index 880 by 54 MMcf/day to 304,000 MMcf/day by increasing the maximum
operating pressure on the lateral from 976 to 982 psig. This increase
in capacity will provide Gulf South's shippers the added flexibility to
nominate additional deliveries into Florida markets through the
Gulfstream Interconnect. Increasing the capacity by increasing the
maximum operating pressure of the Index 880 will provide Gulf South
with a timely and cost effective method of increasing firm
transportation capacity to additional Florida markets. Gulf South
states that its proposal will not have any adverse effects on the
processing plant's operations.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to J.
Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, at
(713) 479-8033 or via fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9797 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37977]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0592(b); FRL-8937-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Alabama: Birmingham 1997 8-Hour Ozone Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Alabama State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), on February 6, 2008, to adopt specific
contingency measures in the form of permit conditions for two cement
kilns. These contingency measures are being adopted for the continued
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in Jefferson and Shelby Counties (``Birmingham
Area''). On May 12, 2006, EPA approved the 8-hour ozone redesignation
of the Birmingham Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (see, 71 FR 27631). Additional measures may be
necessary in the future; however, these revisions qualify as
contingency measures as required under Section 175A(d) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0592 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0592,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Harder may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information relating to the Alabama State
SIP, please contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo. Mr. Farngalo may be reached at
(404) 562-9152, or by electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When the Birmingham Area was redesignated to
attainment, Alabama was also required to submit a maintenance plan
which provided for contingency measures should the Area violate the
standard after being redesignated to attainment. The May 12, 2006,
maintenance plan was designed to keep the Birmingham Area in attainment
through 2017, initially, with a later extension of the maintenance plan
to include a time period of no less than 20 years after the Area was
redesignated originally. After attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
based on 2003-2005 ambient air monitoring data, the Birmingham Area
violated the standard with 2004-2006 ambient air monitoring data. The
February 6, 2008, SIP revision, provided by Alabama for EPA approval,
was submitted to fulfill ADEM's commitment to adopt, within 18 months
of a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, one or more
contingency measures to help the Area re-attain the standard. EPA is
proposing to approve the revisions pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard (see, 73 FR
16436). Today's action however, is being taken to address requirements
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments
are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.
    For additional information see the direct final rule which is
published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
J. Scott Gordon,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-18028 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 118)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29452-29453]
[DOCID:fr22jn09-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117, FRL-8920-6]

Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
Attainment Demonstration for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-N.
New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area;
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the public comment period for a proposal
published on May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21568). In that action, EPA proposed to
disapprove the ozone attainment demonstration submitted by the State of
Connecticut for the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment area. The comment
period on this proposed action closed on June 8, 2009. At the request
of the State of Connecticut, EPA is reopening the public comment period
through August 7, 2009. EPA will consider all comments submitted on
this proposed action from May 8, 2009 through August 7, 2009.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 7, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2008-0117, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2008-0117. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 12, 2009.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E9-14604 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15392-15394]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05537]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69039; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Attestation
Requirement of Rule 4780 To Allow a Retail Member Organization To
Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to the Retail Price
Improvement Program Will Qualify as ``Retail Orders''

March 5, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 19, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change amend the
attestation requirement of NASDAQ Rule 4780 to allow a Retail Member
Organization (``RMO'') to attest that ``substantially all'' orders
submitted to the Retail Price Improvement Program (the ``Program'')
will qualify as ``Retail Orders.'' NASDAQ Rule 4780(b)(2)(C) currently
requires RMOs to attest that ``any order'' will so qualify, effectively
preventing certain significant retail brokers from participating in the
Program due to operational constraints.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, at NASDAQ'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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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 is proposing an amendment to NASDAQ Rule 4780(b)(2)(C)
to provide that an RMO may attest that ``substantially all'' of the
orders it submits to the Program are Retail Orders, as defined in
NASDAQ Rule 4780(a)(2), replacing the requirement that the RMO must
attest

that all submitted orders qualify as Retail Orders.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68747 (January 28,
2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-08) (substantially similar to the filing at
hand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current NASDAQ Rule 4780, a member organization wishing to
become an RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting
documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order will qualify as such under NASDAQ Rule 4780.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Order is defined in NASDAQ Rule 4780(a)(2), in
part, as ``an agency or riskless principal order that originates
from a natural person and is submitted to NASDAQ by a Retail Member
Organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the
order with respect to price (except in the case that a market order
is changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and the
order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing a de minimis relaxation of
the RMO attestation requirement in order to accommodate these system
limitations and expand the access of retail customers to the benefits
of the Program. Specifically, as proposed an RMO would be permitted to
send de minimis quantities of agency orders to the Exchange as Retail
Orders that cannot be explicitly attested to under existing definitions
of the Program.
    The Exchange will issue an Equity Trader Alert to make clear that
the ``substantially all'' language is meant to permit the presence of
only isolated and de minimis quantities of agency orders that do not
qualify as Retail Orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders
due to systems limitations. In this regard, an RMO would need to
retain, in its books and records, adequate substantiation that
substantially all orders sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met the
strict definition and that those orders not meeting the strict
definition are agency orders that cannot be segregated from Retail
Orders due to system limitations, and are de minimis in terms of the
overall number of Retail Orders sent to the Exchange.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., on behalf
of the Exchange, will review a member organization's compliance with
these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\6\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because, while
the proposed rule change represents a relaxation of the attestation
requirements, the change is a de minimis relaxation that still requires
the RMO applicant to attest that ``substantially all'' of its orders
will qualify as Retail Orders. The slight relaxation will allow enough
flexibility to accommodate system limitations while still ensuring that
only a fractional amount of orders submitted to the Program would not
qualify as Retail Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just
and equitable principles of trade because it will ensure that similarly
situated member organizations who have only slight differences in the
capability of their systems will be able to equally benefit from the
Program.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow member organizations,
who are concerned about its system limitations not allowing 100%
certification that submitted orders are Retail Orders, to still
participate in the Program. By removing impediments to participation in
the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail
customers to the price improvement and transparency offered by the
Program and thereby potentially stimulate further price competition for
retail orders.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the Program,
will increase the level of competition around retail executions such
that retail investors would receive better prices than they currently
do on the Exchange and potentially through bilateral internalization
arrangements. The Exchange believes that the transparency and
competitiveness of operating a program such as the Retail Price
Improvement Program on an exchange market would result in better prices
for retail investors, and benefits retail investors by expanding the
capabilities of Exchanges to encompass practices currently allowed on
non-Exchange venues.

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

    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 Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such 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-NASDAQ-2013-031 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-NASDAQ-2013-031. 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 NASDAQ. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-031 and should be submitted on or before
April 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05537 Filed 3-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31663-31665]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from the Center
for Auto Safety (CAS) asking that we initiate rulemaking to require
that any vehicle integrated personal communication systems including
cellular phones and text messaging systems be inoperative when the
vehicle is in motion.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Ms.
Gayle Dalrymple of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at
202-366-5559.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of the NHTSA
Office of Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition for Rulemaking

    The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) submitted a petition for
rulemaking asking that we ``initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of
integrated cellular telephones and other interactive communication and
data transmission devices that can be used for personal conversations
and other interactive personal communication or messaging while a
vehicle is in motion.'' CAS stated that the purpose of the petition was
to ``make the driving environment safer by reducing the availability of
devices that have been proven to be traffic hazards.'' CAS specifically
petitioned NHTSA to undertake the following:
    First, CAS petitioned NHTSA to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock,
and transmission braking effect, by adding a new provision that would
state:

    Any vehicle integrated personal communication systems including
cellular phones and text messaging shall be inoperative when the
transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

    Second, CAS petitioned NHTSA to issue an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) to consider ``subjecting other vehicle integrated
telematic \1\ systems that significantly

increase vehicle crash rates to be included in the scope of the above
proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 102.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At AskOxford.com, the online edition of the Oxford
Dictionary of the English language, ``telematics'' is defined as
``the branch of information technology which deals with the long-
distance transmission of computerized information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CAS asked that NHTSA increase efforts to support state
programs to limit cell phone use by drivers in moving vehicles in the
same manner it supports state programs against drunk driving.
    In its petition, CAS provided background concerning increasing use
by the automotive industry of in-vehicle technologies with telematic
options, which it stated results in distracted driving. CAS asserted
that research shows that operating a motor vehicle while talking on a
cell phone (hand-held or hands-free) ``increases the risk of an
accident to three to four times the experience of attentive drivers.''
    CAS cited a number of States that have enacted legislation designed
to restrict cell phone use as a response to the problem of distracted
driving caused by cell phones. It stated that the highest of these
standards prohibits the use of any hand-held cell phone but permits
drivers to use hands-free wireless devices.
    CAS stated that even if States were to extend the regulations to
hands-free cell phones, enforcing such regulations would be a problem,
as it would be virtually impossible for a traffic officer to see a
driver using a hands-free cell phone. The petitioner stated that the
solution to stopping hands-free talking and driving in a vehicle with
an integrated cell phone is ``through a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard prohibiting the use of cell phone communications while the
vehicle is in motion.''
    CAS provided accounts of motor vehicle crashes resulting in deaths
in which it asserted cell phone use was a crash causation factor. CAS
concluded by urging the government ``to intervene on this dangerous
practice, to ensure basic protection for those who use public roads and
sidewalks.''
    General Motors and Ford submitted comments opposing the CAS
petition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Docket  NHTSA 2007-28442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis and Decision

    We begin by noting that NHTSA has issued the following policy
statement concerning cell phone use while driving, which is included on
the agency's Web site:

    The primary responsibility of the driver is to operate a motor
vehicle safely. The task of driving requires full attention and
focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking
harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of
action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving.

    CAS's petition for rulemaking specifically requests that the agency
address the issue of driver distraction related to the use of cell
phones and other telematic devices by requiring such devices, when
integrated into the vehicle, to be inoperative whenever the vehicle may
be in motion. After carefully considering the available data and the
petitioner's request, we have decided to deny the request.
    By way of background, NHTSA and others recognize that driver
distraction due to use of phones or other devices while driving can
increase the crash risk.\3\ As such, NHTSA has and will continue to
address the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ McCartt et al., ``Cell Phones and Driving: Review of the
Research.'' Traffic Injury Prevention No 7, 89-106, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our initial work on this topic was published in 1997.\4\ In 2000,
NHTSA sponsored an Internet Forum, a Public Meeting, and Expert Working
Groups aimed at providing an extensive resource of information on
research findings, industry initiatives, public comments, and research
needs on driver distraction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless
Communications in Vehicles, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/
research/wireless/.
    \5\ NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum: Summary and
Proceedings, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-13/
FinalInternetForumReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the 1997 study and the 2000 meetings provided information that
helped identify the research goals NHTSA should pursue to help minimize
the distraction safety problem. Since then, the focus of our research
has been to:
    1. Understand the magnitude and characteristics of the safety
problem.
    2. Develop measurement methods to quantify the impacts of device
designs on driver performance.
    3. Evaluate reducing distraction related crash risk through driver
assistance technologies, such as collision warning systems.
    We have worked with researchers in universities, private
organizations, and industry to address these issues. As a result, we
have gained insights about the risks of multitasking,\6\ developed
methods to quantify the effect of operating various devices while
driving,\7\ worked to better understand the importance of device
interface design on driving performance,\8\ and evaluated several
countermeasures that can reduce the risk of distraction by warning
drivers of imminent dangers.\9\ In anticipation of the emergence of
multiple, potentially distracting technologies, NHTSA has also
undertaken a research program to evaluate the potential of a system
that could monitor the level of distraction of drivers, control the
information flow to the driver, and adjust the parameters on collision
warning systems to increase their effectiveness.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk:
An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data,
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/
Crash%20Avoidance/Driver%20Distraction/810594.pdf.
    \7\ Driver Workload Metrics, 2006, http://www.nhtsa.gov/
staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/
Driver%20Distraction/
Driver%20Workload%20Metrics%20Final%20Report.pdf.
    \8\ Examination of the Distraction Effects of Wireless Phone
Interfaces Using the National Advanced Driving Simulator, 2004,
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/VRTC/
ca/capubs/Wireless1F_PrelimReport.pdf.
    \9\ Driver distraction, warning algorithm parameters, and driver
response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving
simulator, 2002, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/
Multimedia/PDFs/Human%20Factors/Driver%20Assistance/
DOT%20HS%20809%20448.pdf.
    \10\ http://www.volpe.dot.gov/hf/roadway/saveit/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional NHTSA research on Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS), such as the Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems (IVBSS)
Initiative, may also lead to countermeasures for driver distraction.
Significant human factors work is underway in IVBSS to design an
integrated Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI) that minimizes distraction
and provides effective warnings to drivers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www.its.dot.gov/ivbss/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAS's petition for rulemaking specifically asks us to address the
problem of driver distraction related to use of cell phones and other
telematic devices by requiring such devices, when integrated into the
vehicle, to be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a
forward or reverse drive position, i.e., whenever the vehicle may be in
motion.
    Federal motor safety standards are required to ``meet the need for
motor vehicle safety.'' 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). However, CAS has not
provided information or analysis showing that the rule it requests
would result in safety benefits.
    If integrated cell phones and other telematic devices were required
to be inoperative, drivers could instead use portable devices such as
their regular cell phones. Given the number of drivers who currently
use cell phones, the agency believes this would be the likely result.
The agency estimates that

in 2005, six percent of drivers at any given moment were using hand-
held cell phones.\12\ The estimate is from the National Occupant
Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), which is the only source of probability-
based observed data on cell phone use by drivers in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005--Overall Results,''
Research Note DOT HS 809 967, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, NHTSA, December 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, we conclude that there is no reason to
believe that the rule requested by the petitioner would result in
safety benefits. Accordingly, we are denying the petition.
    We note that even putting aside the issue of drivers substituting
portable devices for integrated devices, the information provided by
CAS would not lead us to grant its petition.
    In the rulemaking advocated by the petitioner, the agency would
need to consider, among other things, the specific safety impacts
associated with current integrated systems and reasonably foreseeable
integrated systems. It would be necessary to consider reasonably
foreseeable integrated systems given that the requested rule would
prohibit all systems that can be used while the vehicle is in motion.
CAS has not provided specific data or analysis along these lines.
    We also note that in the rulemaking advocated by the petitioner,
the agency would need to consider costs as well as benefits.
    Given the lack of specific data and analysis and also considering
the resources needed to conduct rulemaking, we would not initiate
rulemaking in this area based on the information provided by CAS.
    Finally, as noted earlier, CAS asked that NHTSA increase efforts to
support state programs to limit cell phone use by drivers in moving
vehicles in the same manner it supports state programs against drunk
driving. This particular request is not amenable to being addressed by
rulemaking.
    States have recognized the need to discourage driver distractions
such as cell phone use and texting and many State legislatures have
taken action to restrict those practices.
    While various legislative and educational approaches have been
utilized, little evaluation has been completed and best practices have
yet to be demonstrated. NHTSA has solicited potential options for a
demonstration project in this area to begin in Fiscal Year 2008 or
2009.
    Pursuant to Section 2003(d) of Public Law 109-59 (August 10, 2005),
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), NHTSA will be conducting multiple
demonstration programs to evaluate new and innovative means of
combating traffic system problems caused by distracted, inattentive or
fatigued drivers.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    Issued on: May 27, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc.E8-12285 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41686-41687]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0236; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-345 in the Vicinity of
Ashland, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway V-345 in the vicinity of Ashland, WI. The Ashland, WI, VOR
Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid, which forms the
northern end point of the airway, has been out of service for over ten
months and is scheduled to be decommissioned. The FAA is removing the
portion of V-345 affected by the loss of service by the Ashland, WI,
VOR/DME.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify V-345 in the vicinity of
Ashland, WI (78 FR 18271). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
this proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airway V-345 in the vicinity of
Ashland, WI, due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Ashland, WI,
VOR/DME. This action removes the airway segment between the Hayward,
WI, VOR/DME and the Ashland, WI, VOR/DME navigation aids.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.9W signed August 8, 2012 and effective September 15, 2012, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does 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 United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to

assign the use of the 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 modifies a VOR Federal airway due to
navigation aid infrastructure changes.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311a. This airspace action consists of a modification of an
existing airway and is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8,
2012, and effective September 15, 2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-345 [Amended]

From Dells, WI; INT Dells 321[deg] and Eau Claire, WI, 134[deg]
radials; Eau Claire; to Hayward, WI.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-16443 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P