[Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62691-62697]
[DOCID:fr01de09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 125 and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29281; Amendment Nos. 91-310, 125-58, 135-119]
RIN 2120-AJ09

Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is removing certain provisions in its regulations that
allow for operations with ``polished frost'' (i.e., frost polished to
make it smooth) on the wings and stabilizing and control surfaces of
aircraft. The rule is expected to increase safety by not allowing
operations with ``polished frost,'' which the FAA has determined
increases the risk of unsafe flight.

DATES: These amendments become effective February 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this final rule contact Dean
Griffith, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-220, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security.

I. Background

A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    The FAA published an NPRM in the Federal Register on May 8, 2008
(73 FR 26049). The NPRM proposed to remove language permitting pilots
to takeoff with polished frost adhering to the wings or stabilizing or
control surfaces from Sec. Sec.  91.527(a)(3), 125.221(a), and
135.227(a). The NPRM also proposed to restructure Sec. Sec.  91.527(b),
125.221(c), and 135.227(c) to clarify the provisions of those sections.
The comment period closed on August 6, 2008.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA has recognized that adverse
aerodynamic effects on lifting surfaces begin as soon as frost begins
to adhere to the surfaces. For example, the presence of frost may: (1)
Reduce a wing's maximum lift by 30 percent or more; (2) reduce the
angle of attack for maximum lift by several degrees; (3) increase drag
significantly; and (4) change unexpectedly the aircraft's handling
qualities and performance. The severity of these adverse aerodynamic
effects varies significantly depending on: (1) The thickness, density,
and location of the frost; (2) the degree of the surface roughness; and
(3) the location of the roughness relative to the surface leading edge
where significant variations may occur in the local airspeed and
surface air loads.
    Although polishing frost is currently permitted under part 91
subpart F, and parts 125 and 135, current FAA guidance developed
subsequent to the implementation of those regulations cautions against
this practice. In Advisory Circular (AC) 135-17, the FAA recommends
that all wing frost be removed prior to takeoff, and states that if an
operator desires to polish the frost, the aircraft manufacturer's
recommended procedures should be followed. See AC 135-17, PILOT GUIDE
Small Aircraft Ground Deicing (Dec. 14, 1994). Additionally, the FAA
issued two Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFOs) regarding polishing
frost. SAFO 06002 advises that ``operators should avoid smooth or
polished frost on lift-generating surfaces as an acceptable preflight
condition.'' See SAFO 06002, Ground Deicing Practices for Turbine
Aircraft in Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135 Operations and in Part 91
(Mar. 29, 2006). SAFO 06014 states that the FAA cannot support the
practice of polishing frost ``unless an aircraft manufacturer developed
explicit, approved procedures for doing so,'' and pilots are trained in
those procedures. See SAFO 06014, Polished Frost (Oct. 6, 2006). The
FAA is not aware of any current aircraft manufacturer that has issued
recommended procedures for (1) polishing frost, or (2) conducting
operations with polished frost. This rulemaking codifies the FAA's
current guidance regarding this practice.
    Operational concerns also support removing the provisions
permitting polishing frost from the regulations. The FAA has no data to
support practical guidance for determining how to polish frost on a
surface to make it acceptably smooth, other than completely removing
the frost and returning the aircraft's critical lifting surfaces to
uncontaminated smoothness. Moreover, there is no standard of acceptable
smoothness for polished frost provided in regulation, guidance, or by
manufacturers. Also, the FAA believes that in an operational
environment it is impossible to determine whether the polished frost
surface is uniformly, or symmetrically, smooth.

    There are at least 12 \1\ known accidents in which individuals
attempted to smooth or polish frost, but the aircraft failed to
generate enough lift and crashed shortly after takeoff.\2\ The U.S.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has urged operators to
ensure that critical surfaces are free of contamination prior to take
off. NTSB, Safety Alert: Aircraft Ground Icing (2006). The United
Kingdom's Department for Transport, Air Accidents Investigation Branch,
recommended that the FAA remove the term polished frost from its
regulations following an accident at Birmingham, England. See Air
Accidents Investigation Branch, Department for Transport, Aircraft
Accident Report 5/2004 (2004), available at http://www.aaib.gov.uk/
sites/aaib/cms_resources/5-2004%20N90AG.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FAA identified 11 accidents in the NPRM. During
preparation of the final regulatory evaluation, the FAA identified
an additional accident relevant to this rulemaking.
    \2\ Nine of the 12 accidents would not have been prevented by
this rule, since the aircraft were involved in part 91 (other than
subpart F) operations. Nevertheless, these accidents illustrate the
risk involved in flying with polished frost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists if all wing
surfaces, other than those under the wing in the area of the fuel
tanks,\3\ and other critical surfaces are not uniformly smooth upon
takeoff and is therefore removing references to ``polished frost'' from
the regulations. This final rule requires operators, when performing
operations under part 91 subpart F, part 125, or part 135, to remove
all frost from critical surfaces in order to achieve uncontaminated
surface smoothness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing area of the
fuel tanks if authorized by the Administrator. See, e.g., 14 CFR
125.221(a)(2), 135.227(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the FAA identified four alternatives to polishing
frost that operators may use to comply with this rule. Those
alternatives are: (1) Using wing covers to prevent frost accumulation
on wings, (2) waiting for frost to melt, (3) storing the aircraft in a
heated hangar, or (4) deicing the wing surface. The FAA identified the
use of wing covers to prevent frost accumulation on wing surfaces as
the lowest-cost alternative for complying with this rule.

B. Summary of the Final Rule

    This final rule removes language from part 91 subpart F, and parts
125 and 135, which permits aircraft to takeoff with frost that has been
polished to make it smooth (``polished frost'') on critical surfaces.
Under the final rule, operators will be required to remove any frost
adhering to critical surfaces prior to takeoff. Additionally, the rule
restructures language in parts 91, 125, and 135 to clarify that
aircraft must have functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment to fly
under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or
under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions.

C. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 20 comments in response to the proposed rule. The
FAA received two comments from manufacturers (Boeing and Gulfstream);
three from industry associations (General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA), Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA),
and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA)); and one from
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Additionally, two
operators submitted comments: Webster's Flying Service, which is
located in Alaska, and Centennial State Aviation, LLC. The FAA also
received twelve comments from individuals, including 3 located in
Alaska. Eleven of the commenters, including NTSB, GAMA, ALPA, NATA, and
Gulfstream generally favored the NPRM. Boeing, Centennial State
Aviation, LLC, Webster's Flying Service, and several individual
commenters raised concerns, which are discussed below.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA is adopting the rule as proposed, with minor technical and
clarifying modifications. The FAA is restructuring 14 CFR 91.527(a),
125.221(a), and 135.227(a), and removing the words ``unless that frost
has been polished to make it smooth,'' as proposed.
    The FAA is adopting the restructuring of 14 CFR 91.527(b),
125.221(c), and 135.227(c) as proposed in the NPRM with technical
changes. The FAA is making a minor modification to proposed Sec.
125.221(c)(1) to remove the words ``rotor blade.'' The reference to
rotor blades in that section is not necessary as part 125 applies only
to airplanes.
    The FAA is adopting the proposed language of 14 CFR 91.527(b)(3),
125.221(c)(3), and 135.227(b)(3) in the final rule with a technical
correction. The correction clarifies that a transport category airplane
must meet the transport category airplane requirements for
certification for flight into icing conditions if it will be flown into
known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions. This
clarification is necessary to avoid any interpretation that would
permit flight of transport category airplanes without icing protection
into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions. This aspect
of the final rule addresses a recommendation by the Part 125/135
Aviation Rulemaking Committee, as discussed in the NPRM. See 73 FR
26051.
    The remainder of this section discusses comments received in
response to the NPRM and the FAA's response to those comments.

A. Exception for Takeoffs Made With Frost Under the Wing in the Area of
Fuel Tanks

    Boeing recommended that in Sec. Sec.  91.527(a) and 121.629(b), the
FAA revise the proposed phrase ``except that takeoffs may be made with
frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the
FAA,'' to read ``as otherwise authorized by the Administrator or in
accordance with a manufacturer's recommendations.'' Boeing commented
that the FAA has found that a limited amount of frost is acceptable
(e.g., cold fuel frost), which does not necessarily relate only to the
wing, or even only to the under side of the wing. Further, Boeing noted
that the fuel tank area should not be the criterion for determining
whether such frost is acceptable because ``aerodynamic criticality may
or may not necessarily relate to the entire fuel tank area under the
wing.'' Boeing asserted that such a revision would ``ensure that
previous FAA approvals will not be `undermined' by interpretation of
the new language and would better provide for the ability to address
future designs.''
    The FAA does not agree with Boeing's suggestion to add the words
``or in accordance with a manufacturer's recommendations'' to the
regulatory text. The authority to assess when such takeoffs should be
permitted should remain with the FAA. No changes were made to the final
rule in response to this comment.

B. Applicability to Part 121

    Boeing suggested revising the heading of Sec.  91.527 to read
``Except for 14 CFR part 121 operations, Operating in icing
conditions.'' Boeing stated that this would eliminate confusion as to
what does or does not apply to air carriers, and would help air
carriers when conducting ferry, test, and other non-part 121 flights.
    Part 121 does not permit operations with polished frost. See 14 CFR
121.629(b). This final rule will make part 91 subpart F, and parts 125,
and 135 operations consistent with part 121 with respect to its
prohibition on

operations with polished frost. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
making this change to the rule language is unnecessary.

C. Imposes Additional Burdens

    The FAA received several comments pertaining to burdens that could
be caused by the proposed rule, including storage problems,
availability of hangars for defrosting, overbroad application of the
rule, costs associated with the rule, and that changes to the existing
rule are not necessary.
    Centennial State Aviation, LLC asserted that some aircraft do not
have extra space to store wing covers during transport. As noted above,
the use of wing covers is only one of the alternatives to polishing
frost identified by the FAA. If a particular operator is unable to
transport wing covers, it can utilize one of the other methods of
removing frost from aircraft.
    Webster's Flying Service commented that Alaskan operations should
be excepted from the proposed rule changes because there are times when
temperatures remain below freezing for long periods of time and hangar
facilities are not available to melt frost that has accumulated on
aircraft. Pursuant to current Sec. Sec.  91.527(a)(2), 125.221(a), and
135.227(a), no operator, including those located in Alaska, may take
off with snow or ice adhering to the wings or other control surfaces.
Thus, operators in Alaska, who must adhere to those regulations, should
currently have means to remove snow and ice from their aircraft. The
FAA notes that operators can use the same means to rid their aircraft
of frost that they use to rid their aircraft of snow and ice, or
utilize wing covers or deice the aircraft as an alternative to
polishing frost.
    An individual commented that the FAA is burdening the entire
general aviation fleet to address a problem that is only an issue for
supercritical and high-wing loading aircraft. That commenter continued
that it should be the manufacturer's responsibility to prohibit
polishing frost if it negatively affects a particular aircraft model.
    This rule does not impact the entire general aviation fleet. The
rule only removes references to polished frost from part 91 subpart F,
and parts 125 and 135. Further, the FAA is not aware of any
manufacturer that condones polishing frost on any of its aircraft.
    Boeing suggested that the FAA should revise its Regulatory
Flexibility Determination regarding the cost of wing covers and develop
more realistic costs for occurrences such as difficulty installing wing
covers, possible need for additional personnel or specialized equipment
to assist in placing wing covers on airplanes, possible damage caused
by covers sticking to wings, and potential delays attributable to
installation or removal of the wing covers. Also, an individual from
Alaska interpreted the proposal to mean that aircraft hangars will be a
necessity for operations in wintertime, when wing covers offer
insufficient protection.
    As stated above, other means of removing frost from an aircraft are
available. Operators may choose to wait for frost to melt, store their
aircraft in a heated hangar, or deice wing surfaces. Likewise, this
rule does not mandate removing frost from an aircraft in hangars.
Putting aircraft inside hangars is only one of four alternatives cited
in the NPRM.
    A commenter suggested that the proposal should have been directed
to commercial aircraft only. In fact, this rule only affects operations
conducted under parts 125, 135, and 91 subpart F. Operations otherwise
conducted under part 91 are not affected by the rule.
    Lastly, the FAA received several comments in response to the NPRM
stating that polishing frost is a safe practice and that the proposed
rule change was not necessary. As discussed in the NPRM and this
preamble, frost has an adverse aerodynamic effect on critical lifting
surfaces and the FAA has determined that polishing frost is an unsafe
practice.
    The FAA made no changes to the proposed rule language after
considering these comments.

D. Rule Could Create Hazards

    Six commenters expressed concern that implementation of the rule
would create hazards to operators, aircraft, and the environment as
follows. Two commenters, Centennial State Aviation, LLC, and an
individual, noted that examining the top of a T-tailed aircraft is
difficult. The individual was concerned that such an examination may
create safety issues for individuals examining the tail if there is ice
on the ramp. That commenter added that the top of a horizontal
stabilizer should not be considered a critical surface because it is
not a lift-producing surface.
    Horizontal stabilizers are a critical surface on every aircraft,
and operators must examine them as part of the normal inspections of
their aircraft. Further, examining the wing of a high-wing airplane
requires the same effort as examining the top of a T-tailed aircraft.
    Webster's Flying Service and Boeing raised concerns about damage
that could result from using wing covers. Webster's Flying Service
asserted that ``antennas, etc.'' could be damaged while putting on or
taking off wing covers and that wind blowing on covers could cause
aircraft damage. Boeing commented that wing covers may stick to wings
and cause damage. Webster's Flying Service also discussed that under
certain conditions, a sheen can form under the wing covers, but that
such a sheen would not require polishing and should be determined to be
acceptable.
    As stated previously, the presence of polished frost on wings or
other critical surfaces could be detrimental to the flight
characteristics of an aircraft. The FAA recognizes that it may be
impractical for some operators to use wing covers. As stated in the
NPRM, there are at least three other alternatives to choose from. Those
alternatives include waiting for the frost to melt, storing the
aircraft in a heated hangar, or deicing the wing surface.
    Webster's Flying Service expressed a concern that using deicing
fluids as an alternative to polishing frost could cause pollution in
lakes and streams. The FAA acknowledges that this rule may lead to an
increased use of deicing fluid if operators choose this alternative to
polishing frost. However, deicing is only one of the four methods
identified by the FAA that operators could use to remove frost from
critical surfaces. Further, several factors lead the FAA to believe
that wing covers will be the most broadly adopted alternative to
polishing frost. As discussed in the regulatory evaluation, wing covers
are the lowest-cost alternative to polishing frost available to
operators. Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, FAA, Final Regulatory
Evaluation: Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost on Wings
of Airplanes (2009). Also, from an operational standpoint, wing covers
are portable, enabling operators to use them at any location, from
well-equipped airports to remote landing strips, without the need to
consider the availability of deicing equipment or a hangar in which to
store the aircraft. Additionally, the majority of operators permitted
to polish frost are located in Alaska where it is not unusual to
operate at locations where deicing facilities may not be present.
    Webster's Flying Service also asserted that a heating device could
pose a fire hazard, especially in cold, dry air where a static spark
can occur. This rule does not require operators to use heating devices.
In addition, the FAA recognizes that some manufacturers state that
their engines must be pre-heated before flight. The FAA notes that such
heating devices used for pre-heating an engine may present the same
risk noted by the commenter, and that if used appropriately, such risk
is minimal.

    The FAA has not revised the proposed rule language based on these
comments.

E. Problem Could Be Addressed Through Pilot Training

    Three individuals made comments related to pilot training. One
suggested training on hazardous pre-flight icing identification in lieu
of the proposed rule; another called for improved pilot training in
general in lieu of the proposed rule; and the third commented that the
FAA include in the rulemaking a means by which all pilots could become
educated as to the FAA's rationale for the change in the regulation.
    The FAA has provided guidance on polished frost and operations with
ice, frost, and snow on aircraft. As discussed above, the FAA issued
SAFO 06002 and SAFO 06014, which advise against polishing frost. FAA
Advisory Circular 135-17, PILOT GUIDE Small Aircraft Ground Deicing
(Dec. 14, 1994), recommends that all wing frost be removed prior to
takeoff. Polished frost on critical aircraft surfaces poses a hazard
and the FAA has determined that removing the provisions permitting
polishing of frost is necessary for safe operations. The FAA has not
revised the rule language based on these comments.

F. Possible Delays to Emergency Medical Transport Flights

    Centennial State Aviation, LLC, asserted that unless an operator
has the ability to polish frost, the practice of removing frost could
have a negative impact on the health of a patient on an aeromedical
transport flight because of delays resulting from putting on and
removing wing and tail covers. The commenter noted this is especially
difficult for a single pilot whose aircraft has a 14-foot tail.
    The FAA does not condone operating an aircraft in unsafe
conditions. Further, the FAA notes that the act of polishing frost
could also delay a flight. Accordingly, the FAA has not made changes to
the proposed rule language based on this comment.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.

IV. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

V. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
    This final rule will remove any references in the Federal aviation
regulations that allow takeoffs in situations where frost is present on
wings, stabilizing surfaces, or control surfaces, when such frost has
been polished to make it smooth. The FAA believes these changes are
necessary to improve aviation safety.
    For the ten-year period from 2009 to 2018, the total benefits from
this final rule are projected to be about $980,000 ($689,000
discounted). Of those, $925,000 ($650,000 discounted) will accrue to
Alaska, while the remaining $55,000 ($39,000 discounted) will accrue to
the mainland U.S. Costs will depend on which of four alternatives (wing
covers, storing the aircraft in a hangar, deicing the surface areas, or
waiting for the frost to melt) are selected by operators. The FAA
believes that using wing covers is the least costly alternative.
Assuming operators choose to use wing covers, over the ten-year period
from 2009 to 2018, costs will total roughly $164,000 ($130,000
discounted). Of these, $155,000 ($123,000 discounted) will accrue to
Alaska, and $9,500 ($7,500 discounted) will accrue to the mainland U.S.
Because benefits exceed costs for both Alaska and the mainland U.S.,
the FAA concludes the rule is cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This final rule will improve aviation safety by removing references
to the ``polished frost'' technique found in 14 CFR 91.527(a),
125.221(a), and 135.227(a). This rulemaking affects operators under
part 125, part 135, and those covered by subpart F of part 91 (which
includes all part 91 subpart K operations). There are 57 operators
operating 188 aircraft that will be affected by the rule. The FAA
recognizes that all of these operators are considered small entities
based on the following North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code classifications: Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air
Transportation--481211 (1500 employees or less); Nonscheduled Chartered
Freight Air Transportation--481212 (1500 employees or less); Other
Nonscheduled Air Transportation--481219 ($6.5 million or less in annual
receipts). See 13 CFR 121.201.
    The FAA assumes that most operators will choose to buy and use wing
covers to comply with the final rule. The other alternatives (waiting
for the frost to melt, storing the aircraft in a heated hangar, or
deicing the aircraft) are more expensive than using wing covers. The
FAA estimates that operators will choose to buy wing covers at an
initial cost of $400, plus minimal additional fuel costs and, if
needed, an additional cost of $400 after five years to replace a worn
wing cover.
    In Alaska, there are 21 operators with one aircraft apiece, and 30
operators operating the remaining 156 aircraft. In the mainland U.S.,
there are six operators operating 11 aircraft. The smallest operators
operate only one plane, and will incur a cost of approximately $99 per
year as a result of this rulemaking, a cost that the FAA does not
consider significant. The operator that will be most impacted by the
rule operates 16 affected aircraft, and will incur costs of
approximately $1,584 per year as a result of this rulemaking. This
operator has annual revenues of $5 million. The cost of this rulemaking
represents 0.03 percent of the gross revenues of that operator, and the
FAA does not consider that amount significant. Therefore, as the
Administrator of the FAA, I certify that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will have only a domestic impact and therefore will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not
contain such a mandate.

VI. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

VII. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation,
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, we
requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. The FAA received
comments from one operator, Webster's Flying Service, and three
individuals in Alaska, which are discussed in ``II. Discussion of the
Final Rule and Comments.'' The FAA has determined that while the
regulation will affect some operators in Alaska who polish frost on
their aircraft, there is no need to make any regulatory distinctions
applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska because of the safety
benefit gained from completely removing frost from critical surfaces.

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f. Additionally, the FAA reviewed
paragraph 304 of Order 1050.1E and determined that this rulemaking
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under Executive Order 13211 because it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. In addition, it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 or DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures.

X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

XII. The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717,
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.527 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  91.527  Operating in icing conditions.

    (a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow
adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface;
to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of
climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that
takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel
tanks if authorized by the FAA.
    (b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or
moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment
protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing
or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or
flight attitude instrument system;
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34
of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type
certification provisions, including the requirements for certification
for flight in icing conditions.
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT

0
3. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

0
4. Amend Sec.  125.221 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  125.221  Icing conditions: Operating limitations.

    (a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow
adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface;
to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of
climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing, except that takeoffs
may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if
authorized by the FAA.
* * * * *
    (c) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or
moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment
protecting each propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control
surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight
attitude instrument system;
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet appendix C
of this part; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type
certification provisions, including the requirements for certification
for flight in icing conditions.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

0
6. Amend Sec.  135.227 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  135.227  Icing conditions: Operating limitations.

    (a) No pilot may take off an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow
adhering to any rotor blade, propeller, windshield, stabilizing or
control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed,
altimeter, rate of climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing,
except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area
of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
* * * * *
    (c) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or
moderate icing conditions or under VFR into known light or moderate
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment
protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing
or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or
flight attitude instrument system;
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34
of appendix A of this part; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type
certification provisions, including the requirements for certification
for flight in icing conditions.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2009.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-28431 Filed 11-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15241-15242]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05373]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88361; SR-NYSE-2019-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules To
Add New Rule 7.19 (Pre-Trade Risk Controls)

March 11, 2020.
    On November 27, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act

of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to adopt NYSE Rule 7.19 to provide for optional pre-trade risk
controls. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 17, 2019.\3\ The Commission has received
two comment letters.\4\ On January 29, 2020, the Commission designated
a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87715 (Dec. 11,
2019), 84 FR 68995 (Dec. 17, 2019).
    \4\ See Letter, dated January 7, 2020, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, from Murray Pozmanter, Managing Director,
Head of Clearing Agency Services and GOCS, DTCC. See also Letter,
dated January 7, 2020, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from Tom Barrett, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88080, 85 FR 6254
(February 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 10, 2020, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-NYSE-2019-68).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05373 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 66828]
[DOCID:fr29oc10-146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eleventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78: Standards
for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 15-19, 2010 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Lockheed Martin Information
Systems and Global Solutions, 9231 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, Maryland
20850. Host: Paul Mettus.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 214: Working Group 78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services meeting. The
agenda will include:

Additional Information

    Additional information and all the documents to be considered can
be found in the Web site http://www.faa.gov/go/SC214.

Meeting Objectives

     Review planning and content of SPR and INT drafts version
0.H and 0.I.
     Complete draft Validation Plan.
     Review progress Oceanic/Continental Integration.
     Agree on approach for Oceanic/Continental Integration.
     Review of Position Papers.
      Duration of the committee (currently until end of 2011).
      Publication approach (one or two publications).
      Possible Impact of the ATMAC recs (meeting October 28th).
      Benefits Oceanic/Continental Integration Approach.
      Now TORS(OCL/DSC, update ED 154/Doxxx, * * *).
      Outcome FRAC/consultation DO306/ED 122 and Publication.
      Seamless ATS Data Link and Patent Status.
      A/G Trajectory Information Exchange.
      Backward Compatibility of Data link Implementations (e.g.
214/78 A/C with ATNB1 ground systems (and vice versa); integrate and
non-integrated avionics solutions).
     Position Papers shall be provided to the Co-Chairman by
October 31st, 2010.
     Review and Update the work plan; and Plenary/Subgroup
meetings plan for 2011.

Agenda

Day 1, Monday 15 November, 2010

09:00-12:30 Plenary Session
     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
     Approval of the Agenda.
     Approval of the Summary of Plenary 10.
      Review Action Item Status.
      Coordination Activities.
      Briefing from other SCs and WGs.
      Briefing from recent ICAO NAT and OPLINK meetings.
      Outcome FRAC/Consultation DO306/ED122 Change 1.
      Review of Work so far.
      SPR & INT documents version H and I.
      SC-214/WG-78 TORs and Work Plan.
     Review of Position Papers and Contributions.
13:30-17:00: Plenary Session
     Continuation Review of Position Papers and Contributions.
     Approval of Sub-Group Meeting Objectives.

Day 2, Tuesday November 15, 2010 9:00-17:00 Sub-Group Sessions

Day 3, Wednesday November 16, 2010 9:00-17:00 Sub-Group Sessions

Day 4, Thursday November 18, 2010 9:00-17:00 Plenary Session

     Briefing from SC 186/WG51 on Flight Interval Management
(FIM) Status.
     Configuration Sub-Group Report & Assignment of Action
Items.
     Validation Sub-group Report & Assignment of Action Items.
     VDL Sub-group Report & Assignment of Action Items.
     Review Dates and Locations 2011 Plenary and SG Meetings.
     Any Other Business.
     Adjourn.

Day 5, Friday November 19, 2010 Sub-Group Sessions

9:00-16:00: Sub-Group Sessions
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 20, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-27260 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13943-13946]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06018]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74475; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Penny Pilot Options

March 11, 2015.
    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 27, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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 proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''),\3\ NASDAQ's facility for executing and
routing standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM
proposes to amend certain Fees for Removing Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NOM is a facility of NASDAQ. References in this proposal to
Chapter and Series refer to NOM rules, unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on March 2,
2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2(1) governing the fees assessed for option orders entered
into NOM. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the
Professional,\4\ Firm,\5\ NOM Market Maker,\6\ Non-NOM Market Maker,\7\
and Broker-Dealer \8\ Penny Pilot Options \9\ Fees for Removing
Liquidity.

No change is proposed to Customer \10\ Penny Pilot Options Fees for
Removing Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant to Chapter
I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be appropriately
marked by Participants. The Exchange initially established
Professional pricing in order to ``. . . bring additional revenue to
the Exchange.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64494 (May
13, 2011), 76 FR 29014 (May 19, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-066). In this
filing, the Exchange addressed the perceived favorable pricing of
Professionals who were assessed fees and paid rebates like a
Customer prior to the filing; and noted that a Professional, unlike
a retail Customer, has access to sophisticated trading systems that
contain functionality not available to retail Customers.
    \5\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'').
    \6\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' means a Participant that has
registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter VII, Section
2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to Chapter VII,
Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing in all
securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM Market Maker
in at least one security. See Chapter XV. ``Participant'' means a
firm, or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant
to Chapter II of these Rules for purposes of participating in
options trading on NOM as a ``Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm'' or
``Nasdaq Options Market Maker''. See Chapter I, Section (a)(40).
    \7\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' is a registered market
maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market Maker. A
Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market Maker
designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \8\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category.
    \9\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and was last
extended in 2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579
(March 28, 2008), 73 FR 18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness establishing Penny
Pilot); and 73686 (November 25, 2014), 79 FR 71477 (December 2,
2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-115) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through June 30, 2015). All
Penny Pilot Options listed on the Exchange can be found at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlx.
    \10\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer range at
the OCC which is not for the account of broker or dealer or for the
account of a ``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I,
Section 1(a)(48)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2 NASDAQ Options Market--Fees and Rebates
Penny Pilot Fees for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees for Removing Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options in Chapter IV, Section 2(1) as follows:

                        (1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the NASDAQ Options Market
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fees and rebates (per executed contract)
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Non-NOM
                                     Customer   Professional      Firm        market    NOM  market    Broker-
                                                                              maker         maker       dealer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Options:
    Fee for Removing Liquidity...        $0.48     $0.50 \d\    $0.50 \d\    $0.50 \d\    $0.50 \d\    $0.50 \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Professionals, Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers, NOM Market
Makers, and Broker-Dealers are assessed a $0.49 per contract Fee for
Removing Liquidity in a Penny Pilot Option.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition, note d states that Participants that qualify
for Customer or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 7 or 8
(the highest rebate tiers) in a given month will be assessed a
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, NOM Market Maker, or
Broker-Dealer Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of
$0.48 per contract and a Customer Fee for Removing Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options of $0.47 per contract. See Chapter XV, Section
2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Penny Pilot Fee for Removing
Liquidity for Professionals, Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers, NOM Market
Makers, and Broker-Dealers by a penny, from $0.49 to $0.50 per
contract.\12\ The Exchange is increasing the Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options so that it will be able to continue to
offer rebates to Customers, Professionals, Firms, Non-NOM Market
Makers, NOM Market Makers, and Broker-Dealers to attract liquidity and
encourage order interaction on NOM.\13\ The Exchange will still allow
participants that qualify for Customer or Professional Rebate to Add
Liquidity Tiers 7 or 8 in a given month to be assessed a Professional,
Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, NOM Market Maker, or Broker-Dealer Fee for
Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options of $0.48 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Customers will continue to be assessed a Penny Pilot Option
Fee for Removing Liquidity of $0.48 per contract.
    \13\ The Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity in
Penny Pilot Options is earned pursuant to eight Monthly Volume
Tiers. The NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options is earned pursuant to six different Monthly Volume Tiers.
The concept of ``Common Ownership'' (Participants under 75% common
ownership or control) applies to pricing in Chapter XV, Section 2
for which a volume threshold or volume percentage is required to
obtain the pricing. See Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed fee changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that they provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which NASDAQ operates or controls as described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penny Pilot Fees for Removing Liquidity
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker, NOM Market Maker, and Broker-Dealer Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options from $0.49 to $0.50 per contract is
reasonable because the increase will afford the Exchange the
opportunity to offer additional and increased rebates to these Exchange
participants, which should benefit all market participants through
increased liquidity and order interaction. The Exchange believes that
rebates incentivize Participants to select the Exchange as a venue to
post liquidity and attract additional order flow to the benefit of all
market participants. Incentivizing Participants to post liquidity will
also benefit Participants through increased order interaction.
Increased liquidity, and in particular Customer liquidity (as noted,
the fee for removing Customer liquidity continues to be lower than for
removing other liquidity) provides more trading opportunities, which
attracts other Participants, including NOM Market Makers.\16\ An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Moreover, in constructing the Exchange's fee and rebate program, the
Exchange aims to remain competitive with other venues so that it is a
superior choice for market participants when posting orders. The
Exchange believes that the fee resulting from the proposed increase is
still less than the rates assessed by other options for certain Penny
Pilot Options.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For obligations of Market Makers, see Chapter VII, Section
5. For Market Maker quotations (e.g. firm quotes, continuous
quotes), see Chapter VII, Section 6.
    \17\ See, for example, the Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'') Fee Schedule. Specifically, orders executed
for the account of non-MIAX market makers will be assessed $0.55 per
contract in options overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to increase Fees for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options for Professionals, Firms, Non-NOM Market Makers, NOM Market
Makers, and Broker-Dealers because all market participants, other than
Customers, will continue to be assessed a uniform fee. As explained
herein, order flow brings unique benefits to the market through
increased liquidity which benefits all NOM Participants.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 16 regarding continuous quoting and the
commitment of capital by NOM Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to offer Participants that qualify for Customer
or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity Tiers 7 or 8 in a given month
to be assessed a Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker, NOM Market
Maker, or Broker-Dealer Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options of $0.48 per contract instead of the proposed $0.50 per
contract. The increase in the differential from $0.01 to $0.02 is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is
consistent with differentials at competing options

exchanges. For example, NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') provides that any
member or member organization under Common Ownership with another
member or member organization that qualifies for Customer Rebate Tiers
2, 3, 4 or 5 in Section B of the Pricing Schedule will be assessed
$0.60 per contract, a reduction of $0.10 from the standard rate of
$0.70 assessed Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See PHLX's Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, and its facility NOM, operates in a highly
competitive market, comprised of twelve exchanges, in which market
participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and
the rebates paid by the Exchange, as described in the proposal, are
influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain
competitive with fees charged and rebates paid by other venues and
therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than
competing venues.
    The proposed fees are designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use
of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup costs while
continuing to attract liquidity and offer connectivity at competitive
rates to Exchange members and member organizations.
    By offering competitive pricing, the Exchange desires to
incentivize members and member organizations, through the Exchange's
rebate and fee structure, to select NOM as a venue for bringing
liquidity to the Exchange and trading. Such competitive, differentiated
pricing exists today on other options exchanges. The Exchange's goal is
creating and increasing incentives to attract orders that will, in
turn, benefit all market participants through increased liquidity.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    In the Exchange's fee schedule for Removing Liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options, Customers have had to pay the lowest fee, and this
continues to be reflected in the pricing schedule. The Exchange does
not believe the proposed differential would result in any burden on
competition as between Participants. The Exchange believes that
continuing to assess Customers the current fee while increasing the fee
for other Participants creates competition among options exchanges
because the Exchange believes that this may cause market participants
to select NOM as a venue to send Customer and other order flow. The
Exchange believes that incentivizing Participants to post liquidity on
NOM benefits NOM Participants through increased order interaction.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Professional, Firm, Non-NOM
Market Maker, NOM Market Maker, and Broker-Dealer Fees for Removing
Liquidity in Penny Pilot Options does not misalign the current fees on
NOM. As noted, Customers were assessed less than other participants
before the proposal, and will continue to be assessed less under the
new fee. The Exchange believes that other market participants benefit
from incentivizing order flow as explained herein. As noted, Customers
continue to pay a lower Fee for Removing Liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options, which is currently the case for most fees on NOM that are
either not assessed to a Customer or where a Customer is assessed the
lowest fee because of the liquidity such order flow brings to the
Exchange. Also, NOM Market Makers have obligations \20\ to the market
which are not borne by other market participants and therefore the
Exchange believes that NOM Market Makers are entitled to a lower fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons specified herein, the Exchange does not believe
this proposal will result in any burden on competition. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market comprised of twelve U.S.
options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market
participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges if they
deem fee levels or rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be
excessive or inadequate. The Exchange believes that this competitive
marketplace impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today
and substantially influences the proposals set forth above.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\21\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed on any person, whether or not the person is a
member of the self-regulatory organization, which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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-NASDAQ-2015-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-019. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-019 and should
be submitted on or before April 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-06018 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 4 DRAFT November 18, 2005 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING DECEMBER 6 8, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2005 0249 PLANT INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS BASED ON VIRUS COAT PROTEIN GENES: SCIENCE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 C 8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Stephen Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

C 8: 45 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Paul Lewis, Ph. D.

C 8: 50 AM Welcome   J. Thomas McClintock, Ph. D. ( Director, Hazard Assessment Coordination and Policy Division, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA)

C 8: 55 AM Opening Remarks   Janet Andersen, PhD. ( Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 9: 00 AM Regulatory Overview of PIPs   Sharlene Matten, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 9: 15 AM History of Regulatory Proposals for PVCP PIPs   Elizabeth Milewski, Ph. D. ( Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA)

C 9: 30 AM Summary of EPA's Position on Gene Flow and Its Environmental Impact   Anne Fairbrother, PhD. ( National Health and Environmental Research Effects Laboratory, ORD, EPA)

C 10: 00 AM BREAK C 10: 15 AM Summary of EPA's Position on Viral Interactions and PTGS   Melissa Kramer, Ph. D. ( Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA) Page 2 of 4 C 10: 45 AM Summary of EPA's Position on Issues Associated with Exposure to PVC Proteins   Rebecca Edelstein, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 11: 15 AM Summary of EPA's Position on Environmental Safety of Selectable Markers   Tessa Milofsky, M. S. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 12: 00 PM LUNCH C 1: 00 PM Public Comments C 2: 00 PM Panel Discussion C 3: 00 PM BREAK C 3: 15 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 4: 30 PM ADJOURNMENT Page 3 of 4 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING DECEMBER 6 8, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2005 0249 PLANT INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS BASED ON VIRUS COAT PROTEIN GENES: SCIENCE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE DECEMBER 7, 2005 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 C 8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Stephen Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

C 8: 35 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Paul Lewis, Ph. D.

C 8: 40 AM Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion   Melissa Kramer, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 9: 00 AM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 10: 30 AM BREAK C 10: 45 AM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 12: 00 PM LUNCH C 1: 00 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 3: 00 PM BREAK C 3: 15 PM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 5: 00 PM ADJOURNMENT Page 4 of 4 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING DECEMBER 6 8, 2005 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2005 0249 PLANT INCORPORATED PROTECTANTS BASED ON VIRUS COAT PROTEIN GENES: SCIENCE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE DECEMBER 8, 2005 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 C 8: 30 AM Introduction and Identification of Panel Members   Stephen Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Session Chair)

C 8: 35 AM Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Paul Lewis, Ph. D.

C 8: 40 AM Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion   Melissa Kramer, Ph. D. ( Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA)

C 9: 00 AM Panel Discussion ( continued)

C 1: 00 PM ADJOURNMENT Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone: ( 202) 564 8450; fax: ( 202) 564 8382; or email: lewis. paul@ epa. gov


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

      	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       		WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 		August 22, 2012

SUBJECT:	Product Chemistry Scoping Document for the Registration Review of 1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN) and 2,6- Diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN).

            Registration Review Case #: 6029
            PC Codes: 055802, 055803
            CAS Numbers: 571-58-4, 24157-81-1
            Chemical Class: Biochemical
            Review Type: Product Chemistry

FROM:		Gina Burnett, M.S., Biologist   /s/    8/22/12
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

TO:			Colin Walsh, Regulatory Action Leader
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

AND:			Leonard Cole, Regulatory Action Leader
            Biochemical Pesticides Branch
            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division (7511P)

ACTION REQUESTED

A preliminary assessment of available information on product chemistry data associated with the biopesticides 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN) and 2,6- diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN) in support of the development of a Registration Review Work Plan.

Introduction

The Agency has determined that all necessary product chemistry information is available on the pesticide active ingredients 1,4-dimethylenaphthalene (1,4-DMN) and 2,6-diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN) with the exception of the UV/Visible light absorption data requirement (OCSPP Guideline 830.7050). This data requirement has not been fulfilled for either chemical. The Agency requires UV/Visible light absorption data for all technical grade active ingredients.

1,4-DMN is a biochemical pesticide intended for use as a growth regulator (potato sprout inhibitor). The first product containing this active ingredient was registered with the Agency in 1994. Currently, there are four active registrations containing 1,4-DMN; one manufacturing use product (MUP) and three end-use products (EPs). A tolerance exemption listed at 40 CFR 1180.1142 establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,4-DMN when applied post harvest to potatoes in accordance with good agricultural practices.

2,6-DIPN is also a biochemical pesticide intended for use as a growth regulator (potato sprout inhibitor). The first product containing this active ingredient was registered with the Agency in 2003. Currently, there are two active registrations containing 2,6-DIPN. A tolerance for residues listed at 40 CFR 180.590 establishes residue levels for 2,6-DIPN and its metabolites and degredates in potato, cattle, goat horse, milk and sheep.

Concerning the product chemistry of 1,4-DMN and 2,6-DIPN, all biochemical pesticide data requirements for the technical grade active ingredients have been satisfied and are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. UV/Visible light absorption data is the only product chemistry data outstanding for the products currently registered. Future registrations must adequately address all of the biochemical pesticides product chemistry data requirements.

Table 1. Product Identity and Composition for 1,4-DMN
Common Name
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN)
Chemical Name, IUPAC
Naphthalene, 1,4-dimethyl-
Molecular Weight
156.22
PC Code
055802
CAS Registry Number
571-58-4
Empirical Formula
C12H12
Registration Review Case Number
6029
Chemical Structure

Table 2. Product Identity and Composition for 2,6-DIPN
Common Name
2,6-Diisopropylnaphthalene (2,6-DIPN)
Chemical Name, IUPAC
Naphthalene, 2,6-bis(1-methylethyl)
Molecular Weight
212.33
PC Code
055803
CAS Registry Number
24157-81-1
Empirical Formula
C16H20
Registration Review Case Number
6029
Chemical Structure

Product Chemistry Summary
The Agency has conducted a review of the available product chemistry data and information for 1,4-DMN.  These data are summarized in Table 3, below.

Table 3. Biochemical Pesticides Product Chemistry Data Requirements for 1,4-DMN
                                 Guideline No.
                       Physical and Chemical Properties
                                   Status[1]
                                     Value
                                     MRID
830.1100
Product Identity and Composition
                                       A
Refer to Table 1.
                                       -
830.1200
Description of starting materials, production and formulation process
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.1400
Discussion of formation of impurities
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.1700
Preliminary analysis
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.6302
Color
                                       A
Pale yellow to colorless
43082506
830.6303
Physical state
                                       A
Liquid at room temperature
43082506
830.6304
Odor
                                       A
Petroleum distillate
43082506
830.6313
Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals and metal ions
                                       A
Stable at normal temp.; 6-7% loss at elevated temp.; stable in presence of metals.
43082509
830.7000
pH
                                       A
5.9 at 25[o]C
43082506
830.7050
UV/Visible light absorption

                                      N/D
                                       -
                                       -
830.7200
Melting point/melting range
                                      N/A
                               N/A; not a solid
                                       -
830.7220
Boiling point/boiling range
                                       A
264[o]C
43280506
830.7300
Density
                                       A
1.014 g/ml at 25[o]C
43280506
830.7520
Particle size, fiber length, and diameter distribution
                                      N/A
                             N/A; soluble in water
                                       -
830.7550
830.7560
830.7570
Partition coefficient (n-Octanol/Water)
                                      N/A
                             N/A; soluble in water
                                       -
830.7840
Water solubility
                                       A
Soluble at 5.1ppm
43082507
830.7950
Vapor pressure
                                       A
1.88x10[-2] Torr at 25[o]C
43082508
   1. A=Acceptable. N/A=Not Applicable. N/D=Not Determined.

The Agency has conducted a review of the available product chemistry data and information for 2,6-DIPN.  These data are summarized in Table 4, below.

Table 4. Biochemical Pesticides Product Chemistry Data Requirements for 2,6-DIPN
                                 Guideline No.
                       Physical and Chemical Properties
                                   Status[1]
                                     Value
                                     MRID
830.1100
Product Identity and Composition
                                       A
Refer to Table 1.
                                       -
830.1200
Description of starting materials, production and formulation process
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.1400
Discussion of formation of impurities
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.1700
Preliminary analysis
                                       A
CBI
                                       -
830.6302
Color
                                       A
Munsell color systems: N 9.5 90.0% R
44614103
830.6303
Physical state
                                       A
Crystalline solid at 25[o]C
44614103
830.6304
Odor
                                       A
No noticeable odor
44614103
830.6313
Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals and metal ions
                                       A
Stable at normal and elevated temperatures; stable in presence of Al and Zn, 7% reduction in presence of Cu
44614103
830.7000
pH
                                       A
6.00 at 20[o]C
44614103
830.7050
UV/Visible light absorption

                                      N/D
                                       -
                                       -
830.7200
Melting point/melting range
                                       A
67.8[o]C to 68.9[o]C
44614103
830.7220
Boiling point/boiling range
                                      N/A
                               N/A; not a liquid
                                       -
830.7300
Density
                                       A
0.49 g/ml at 25[o]C
44614103
830.7520
Particle size, fiber length, and diameter distribution
                                      N/A
N/A; soluble in water
                                       -
830.7550
830.7560
830.7570
Partition coefficient (n-Octanol/Water)
                                       A
Soluble in 1-octanol at 39,559ppm
44614103
830.7840
Water solubility
                                       A
0.02ppm
44614103
830.7950
Vapor pressure
                                       A
                           6.1x10[-4] Torr at 25[o]C
44614103
   1. A=Acceptable. N/A=Not Applicable. N/D=Not Determined.

References

Irving, J.W., Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision M, Series: 151-17, (Physical and Chemical Properties). Study performed by DARTEC, Inc. and submitted to EPA by Plate Chemical Co. MRID 446141-03. 1998.

Lorence, P.J., Vargyas, L.D., and J.R. Marat. 1,4-DMN Batch H5510-Color, Physical State, Odor, Boiling Point, Specific Gravity, PH, Flammability, Impact Explodability, Viscosity, Lab Project Number 4373-93-0226-AS. Private study performed by Ricerca, Inc. and submitted to EPA by D-I-1-4, Inc. MRID 430825-06. 1993.

Lorence, P.J., Vargyas, L.D., and J.R. Marat. 1,4-DMN Solubility, Lab Project Number 4373-93-0250-AS. Private study performed by Ricerca, Inc. and submitted to EPA by D-I-1-4, Inc. MRID 430825-07. 1993.

Lorence, P.J., Vargyas, L.D., and J.R. Marat. 1,4-DMN  -  Vapor Pressure. Lab Project Number 4373-93-0249-AS. Private study performed by Ricerca, Inc. and submitted to EPA by D-I-1-4, Inc. MRID 430825-08. 1993.

Lorence, P.J., Vargyas, L.D., and J.R. Marat. 1,4-DMN Stability, Lab Project Number 4373-93-0247-AS. Private study performed by Ricerca, Inc. and submitted to EPA by D-I-1-4, Inc. MRID 430825-09. 1993.

National Organic Standards Board Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Review . 1,4-
      dimethylnaphthalene for use as a post-harvest adjuvant. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5057592. 8/14/2012.

PubChem. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. 8/14/2012.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 55949]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-79-000]

Voyager Wind IV Expansion, 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
Voyager Wind IV Expansion, 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 October 31, 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: October 11, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22795 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P