[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62593-62594]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26325]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76122; File No. SR-ICC-2015-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to the ICC Rule Enforcement
Process for Missed Submissions

October 9, 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 September 30, 2015, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') 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 primarily by ICC. 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

    The purpose of the proposed changes is to make revisions to the ICC
Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'') related to the ICC rule enforcement
process for Missed Submissions.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

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

    As part of ICC's end-of-day price discovery process, ICC Clearing
Participants (``CPs'') are required to submit end-of-day prices for
specific instruments related to their open interest at ICC, in
accordance with Rule 404(b) and ICC Procedures. Failure of a CP to
provide submissions required by ICC pursuant to Rule 404(b) and ICC
Procedures constitute a Missed Submission. In order to provide
incentive against Missed Submissions, ICC has adopted a summary
assessment approach described in Rule 702(e) and Schedule 702 of the
Rules.
    Currently, under Rule 702(e)(ii)(2), a CP may be eligible for a
once-in-a-lifetime conditional waiver from such assessments, if one or
more Missed Submissions are the first instance(s) of a Missed
Submission for the type of instrument (index or single name) and the CP
provides adequate explanation of the cause and plans for remedial
actions.
    Given the increased automation of price submissions, ICC recognizes
that there may be circumstances, due to technological failures, which
may result in Missed Submissions. Furthermore, due to the significant
length of time since the inception of the end-of-day process, many CPs
have utilized their once-in-a-lifetime waiver. As such, ICC believes it
is reasonable to provide, under limited circumstances, a conditional
once-a-year waiver for such Missed Submissions caused by technical
failures, as described below. Such Rule changes will not affect the
integrity and effectiveness of the end-of-day price discovery process.
ICC believes such Rule changes provide a valuable and practical balance
between the technicalities of the price discovery process and
appropriate penalization for Missed Submissions.
    The proposed Rule text provides for the replacement of ICC's
current once-in-a-lifetime waiver for Missed Submissions with a
conditional once-a-year waiver for Missed Submissions caused by
technical failures. Under revised Rule 702(e)(ii)(2), a CP would be
eligible for one waiver per year for single name Missed Submissions,
and one waiver per year for index Missed Submissions. A CP may request
such wavier(s) be applied against all Missed Submissions for a given
instrument class on a given day. A CP would be required to provide
documentation with a waiver request, explaining that the root-cause of
the Missed Submission was a technology issue and including a
remediation plan to fix the cause of the Missed Submission. ICC would
review and evaluate the waiver request and accept unless it had
legitimate concerns that the root-cause of the Missed Submission had
not been adequately identified, was not due to a technical issue, and/
or would not be corrected by the provided remediation plan. ICC would
maintain its current ability to provide waivers for Missed Submissions
deemed to be due to extraordinary circumstances outside of a CP's
control, as set forth in Rule 702(e)(ii)(3). Pending regulatory
approval, ICC plans to implement these changes on January 1, 2016, and
apply the once-a-year waiver to the 2016 calendar year, and each
calendar year going forward. There are no changes to ICC policies and
procedures as a result of the Rule changes.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to protect investors
and the public interest and to comply with the provisions of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in
particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\4\ because ICC believes that the
proposed rule changes will assure the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements,
contracts, and transactions, as the proposed revisions enhance ICC's
price discovery process, by ensuring a fair and equitable assessment
structure. As such, the proposed changes are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions

within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \5\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, such proposed changes are designed to ensure that CPs
are appropriately disciplined for violations of ICC's rules,
specifically Missed Submissions, through an appropriate fining
structure, in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(G).\6\ Finally, such
proposed rule changes are intended to provide a fair procedure with
respect to the disciplining of CPs for Missed Submissions, in
accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(H).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(G).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Rule changes related
to the ICC rule enforcement process for Missed Submissions apply
uniformly across all market participants. Therefore, ICC does not
believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that
is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2015-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2015-015. 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 filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    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-ICC-2015-015
and should be submitted on or before November 6, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26325 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4380-4381]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-79]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0681; FRL-8437-2]

Draft Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability and Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of four draft test
guidelines for Product Performance of Public Health Uses of
Antimicrobial Agents for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0681, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0681. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Electronic access to the OPPTS Test Guidelines: To access the OPPTS
harmonized test guidelines electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods & Guidelines'' on the left
side navigation menu. You may also access the guidelines in http://
www.regulations.gov grouped by series under dockets ID numbers EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-
0576.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general information contact:
Communications Services Branch (7506P), Field and External Affairs
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone numbers:<PHONE_NUMBER> and TDD:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(703) 305-5558.
    For technical information contact: Michele Wingfield,
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    These draft guidelines are part of a series of test guidelines
established by the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) for use in testing pesticides and chemical
substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et
seq.), and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA)
(21 U.S.C. 346a).
    The OPPTS test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted
scientific

methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform
regulatory decisions under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. The test
guidelines provide guidance for conducting the test, and are also used
by EPA, the public, and the companies that are subject to data
submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or the FFDCA.
    As a guidance document, the test guidelines are not binding on
either EPA or any outside parties, and the EPA may depart from the test
guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. The
procedures contained in the test guidelines are recommended for
generating the data that are the subject of the test guideline, but EPA
recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations.
You may propose alternatives to the recommendations described in the
test guidelines, and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on
a case-by-case basis.

II. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be
required to conduct testing of pesticides and chemical substances for
submission to EPA under FIFRA and/or FFDCA, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed CBI. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at the estimate.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggested alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

III. Overview

A. What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability for public review and comment of
the following four draft test guidelines under Series 810-Product
Performance Test Guidelines for Public Health Uses of Antimicrobial
Agents:

     OPPTS 810.2000 - General Considerations for Public
Health Uses of Antimicrobial Agents.

     OPPTS 810.2100 - Sterilants - Efficacy Data
Recommendations.

     OPPTS 810.2200 - Disinfectants for Use on Hard
Surfaces--Efficacy Data Recommendations.

     OPPTS 810.2300 - Sanitizers for Use on Hard Surfaces--
Efficacy Data Recommendations.

    These guidelines address efficacy testing for antimicrobial agents
intended to be used on hard, inanimate, environmental surfaces, and
which bear label claims as sterilants, disinfectants, and/or
sanitizers. Data from these studies are used to support the labeling
claims for public health related antimicrobial agents.

B. How Were These Test Guidelines Developed?

    The product performance use guidelines for antimicrobial agents
were last updated in 1982 under the ``Pesticide Assessment Guidelines -
Subdivision G, Product Performance.'' Since then, the Agency has
presented several issues at two separate meetings of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory
Panel (SAP) (one in September 1997 and the other in July 2007) related
to the conduct of studies for antimicrobial agents. In addition to
formatting changes to incorporate the guidelines into the OPPTS
guidelines series 810, EPA has added sections that incorporate the
recommendations from the two SAPs, new guidelines and clarifications
from other guidance documents, and comments from the regulated
industry. In particular, a new section has been added that describes
the data to be submitted to support labeling claims against two spore
forming bacteria, Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium difficile.
Altogether, these revised guidelines, once final, will represent the
Agency's current recommendations for conducting studies to support
antimicrobial pesticide label claims.
    On October 8, 2008, EPA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule entitled ``Data Requirements for Antimicrobial
Pesticides'' (73 FR 59382). Proposed Sec.  158.2220 (40 CFR part 158)
contains a table entitled ``Antimicrobial Product Performance Data
Requirements,'' which referenced under the Guidelines Number column the
91 series of guidelines. EPA's intention is to replace the 91 series
designations with the appropriate reference to the 810 series
designations under 810.2000. Therefore, at the time of the publication
of the final rule, appropriate references to the OPPTS test guideline
numbers and names will be incorporated into the final data requirement
regulations.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemical testing, Test guidelines.

    Dated: January 15, 2010.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010-1323 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34407-34408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14790]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9929-20-Region-6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Valero Refining--Meraux, LLC in Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR
70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated May 29, 2015,
denying the petition asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued
by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for the Meraux
petroleum refinery (Title V operating permit number 2500-00001-V5). The
EPA's May 29, 2015 Order responds to the petition submitted by the
Concerned Citizens Around Murphy, represented by the Tulane
Environmental Law Clinic, on April 3, 2012. Sections 307(b) and
505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial
review of those portions of the Orders that deny issues raised in the
petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the
date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section
307(b) of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and
other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of
the final Orders, petitions, and other supporting information. You may
view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these
documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the
visiting day. Additionally, the final May 29, 2015 Order is available
electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/meraux_response2012.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyndall Cox at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 6 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit
proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only
on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the state,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the
issue arose after this period.
    EPA received the petition from the Concerned Citizens Around Murphy
(CCAM) on April 3, 2012 (2012 Petition), which is the second petition
that EPA received from CCAM concerning this facility's title V permit.
EPA previously received a petition from CCAM regarding the 2009 Meraux
Title V Modification Permit (2009 Permit) on December 10, 2009 (2009
Petition), and responded to that petition in a prior order (2011 Order)
that granted in part and denied in part the request for an objection.
Within 90 days after that

order, the LDEQ issued a response to EPA's title V order (2011 LDEQ
Response). The 2012 Petition requests that the Administrator object to
the 2009 Permit on the general basis that ``(the) LDEQ has not shown
the facility's emissions will not trigger Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.'' More specifically, the 2012
Petition contends that the netting analysis LDEQ conducted for the
BenFree Unit project and used to determine that the project did not
trigger PSD review was incomplete because it only included emissions
from normal operations to the North Flare. The 2012 Petition states
that the netting analysis calculations ``should have included emergency
emissions'' unless such emissions are subject to ``legally and
practicably enforceable limits.'' The 2012 Petition also contends that
LDEQ failed to issue a revised permit that satisfies the EPA's
objections in the 2011 Order. The Order issued on May 29, 2015 responds
to the 2012 Petition and explains the basis for EPA's decisions.

    Dated: June 5, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-14790 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9494-9497]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-23]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28503; Notice No. 08-01]
RIN 2120-AJ04

Airworthiness Standards; Fire Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to change aircraft engine fire protection
certification standards to upgrade and harmonize them with European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements. The proposed changes, if
adopted, would provide nearly uniform fire protection certification
standards for engines certificated in the United States under 14 CFR
part 33 and in European countries under EASA Certification
Specifications for Engines (CS-E), and would simplify international
type certification.

DATES: Send your comments on or before May 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
28503 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/
 and follow the online instructions for submitting

comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to the Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Operations at 202-493-
2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you

provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April
11, 2000 [65 FR 19477-78] or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Operations in

Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Bouthillier, Engine and Propeller
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781)
238-7120; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 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 III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope
of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for
aircraft engine fire protection.

Background

    Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
33) prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type
certificates for aircraft engines certificated in the United States
(U.S.). The Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) prescribe
corresponding airworthiness standards for aircraft engine certification
in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). While part 33
and the European regulations are similar, they differ in several
respects. These differences can result in additional costs and delays.
    In 1989, the FAA met with the European Joint Aviation Authorities,
U.S. and European aviation industry representatives to harmonize U.S.
and European certification standards. Transport Canada subsequently
joined this effort. The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) through its Engine Harmonization Working Group to
review existing regulations and recommend changes to eliminate
differences in U.S. and European engine certification fire protection
standards. This proposed rule is based on Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) recommendations to the FAA.

General Discussion of the Proposal

    This notice proposes to change the fire protection standards for
issuing original and amended aircraft engine type certificates. This
proposal results from an effort to improve and harmonize Federal
Aviation Regulations 14 CFR part 33 with the European requirements of
EASA CS-E. The proposal addresses ARAC recommendations, concurred with
by industry, and based on language

generally common to both part 33 and CS-E.
    Our proposed changes would provide nearly uniform fire protection
certification standards for engines certificated in the United States
under part 33 and in Europe under EASA CS-E, thereby simplifying
aircraft engine import and export activities. The proposal also
reflects current industry design and FAA certification practices.

Section 33.17 Fire Protection

    Section 33.17 sets standards for fire prevention and protection in
the design and construction of aircraft engines. Our proposal would
change the section title from ``Fire Prevention'' to ``Fire
Protection'' and harmonize the section with CS-E standards. We propose
to modify the section as follows:
    (1) Clarify existing requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(e),
    (2) Delete current requirements for supersonic engines from
paragraph (d), and add new requirements for components acting as
firewalls,
    (3) Renumber paragraph (e) as new paragraph (f),
    (4) Add new paragraph (e) to specify requirements for engine
control systems; and
    (5) Add new paragraph (g) to include requirements for electrical
bonding.
    Our proposed change to paragraph (b) would differentiate between
drain lines and other components and would not apply to certain drain
lines. This revision would be consistent with our fire protection
requirements in Sec. Sec.  23.1183(b)(2), 25.1183(b)(2), 27.1183(b)(2),
and 29.1183(b)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (c) adds ``associated shut-off means'' to the
first sentence; changes ``must be fireproof or be enclosed by fireproof
shield'' to ``must be fireproof by construction or protection''; and
incorporates the term ``hazardous quantity''. The addition of the term
``shutoff means'' adds tank shutoff devices to the rule's
applicability, and thereby provides additional margin against feeding a
fire from a flammable fluid tank due to failure of such a device. A
shutoff means can be separate from the tank itself, but is an integral
part of the tank system and needs to be considered under these fire
protection requirements. Other proposed changes are clarifying in
nature and would harmonize U.S. and European standards.
    The FAA proposes to remove the requirements in current paragraph
(d) in response to recommendations resulting from an FAA/ARAC review of
an industry study on supersonic transports. The study concluded the
maximum temperature levels of controls and accessories installed in
supersonic aircraft were not significantly greater than maximum
temperature levels of components installed in subsonic applications.
The study showed that components used on supersonic applications
required no additional fire protection because the severity, frequency,
and duration of fire would be similar to those found in subsonic
applications. The study showed, and we agree, that additional fire
protection is not required for these components.
    Proposed new paragraph (d) would require that even though the noted
components do not contain or convey flammable fluids, by their
definition, they must be fireproof. This proposal will add requirements
consistent with Sec. Sec.  23.1191, 25.1191, 27.1191, and 29.1191
``Firewalls''.
    We propose to redesignate current paragraph (e) as paragraph (f)
and rephrase the text for clarity.
    Our new proposed paragraph (e) would address engine control system
effects when associated components are exposed to a fire. Control
system components (for example, electronic, fiber optic,
hydromechanical) should not cause any hazardous effects when exposed to
fire, and should be addressed in the fire protection section. These
proposed new requirements would be consistent with the associated
aircraft requirements. The designated fire zones in new paragraph (e)
are defined in existing Sec. Sec.  23.1181, 25.1181, and 29.1181. Our
proposed paragraph (g) would minimize static discharge sources of
ignition for flammable fluids or vapors.

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 no
new information collection requirements are associated with this
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

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

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 from the base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this Order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this proposed rule.
    Presently, turbine airplane engine manufacturers must satisfy both
the FAA and the EASA certification standards in order for airplane
manufacturers to market airplanes with those engines in both the United
States and Europe. Meeting two different sets of certification
requirements can raise the cost of developing a new airplane engine
without increasing safety. In the interest of fostering international
trade, lowering the cost of airplane engine development, making the
certification process more efficient, and enhancing safety, the FAA,
EASA, and airplane engine manufacturers have been working to create to
the maximum

possible extent a common set of certification requirements accepted in
both the United States and Europe.
    The FAA estimates that there would be minimal costs associated with
this proposed rule. A review of information provided by manufacturers
of turbine airplane engines certificated under part 33 has revealed
that all such future airplane engines are expected to be certificated
under both FAA and EASA standards. As this proposed rule would unify
these requirements in a common international standard, and certificated
turbine airplane engines currently meet both sets of requirements,
manufacturers would incur minimal additional costs from this proposed
rule. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings from
a reduction in the amount of duplicate documentation of tests for the
two different sets of requirements. Further, the proposed rule would
codify existing industry practices into the regulations. The FAA has
not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to this
specific proposed rule, beyond noting that while they may be minimal,
they would contribute to a potential harmonization savings. The agency
has made that conclusion based on the consensus among potentially
affected airplane engine manufacturers. Further, the current level of
safety would be enhanced as a result of the proposed rule. As a result,
the FAA has concluded that this proposed rule would be cost beneficial.
The FAA requests comments regarding this determination.

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 proposed 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 an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed 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.
    The FAA concluded that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two
reasons. First, as noted earlier, the net effect of the proposed rule
would provide regulatory cost relief. Second, all United States turbine
airplane engine manufacturers but one, exceed the Small Business
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane
engine manufacturers. United States transport category airplane engine
manufacturers include: General Electric, CFM International, Pratt &
Whitney, International Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce Corporation,
Honeywell, and Williams International. Williams International is the
only one of these manufacturers that is a U.S. small business.
    Given that we believe this proposed rule would reduce costs, and
that only one part 33-airplane engine manufacturer currently qualifies
as a small entity, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would 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) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. 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 proposed rule and determined it responds to a
domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary barrier
to trade.

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 the expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) 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 $128.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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. We determined that
this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion
identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 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 the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite
comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,

please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing
comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. Before acting on
this proposal, we will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. Comments filed after the comment period
closes are considered if possible to do so without incurring expense or
delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments received.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider proprietary
or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information
directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that
you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information
on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy 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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 33 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    2. Section 33.17 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  33.17  Fire protection.

    (a) The design and construction of the engine and the materials
used must minimize the probability of the occurrence and spread of fire
during normal operation and failure conditions, and must minimize the
effect of such a fire. In addition, the design and construction of
turbine engines must minimize the probability of the occurrence of an
internal fire that could result in structural failure or other
hazardous effects.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
external line, fitting, and other component, which contains or conveys
flammable fluid during normal engine operation must be fire resistant
or fireproof, as applicable. Components must be shielded or located to
safeguard against the ignition of leaking flammable fluid.
    (c) A tank, which contains flammable fluids and any associated
shut-off means and supports, which are part of and attached to the
engine, must be fireproof either by construction or by protection
unless damage by fire will not cause leakage or spillage of a hazardous
quantity of flammable fluid. For a reciprocating engine having an
integral oil sump of less than 23.7 liters capacity, the oil sump need
not be fireproof or enclosed by a fireproof shield.
    (d) An engine component designed, constructed, and installed to act
as a firewall must be:
    (1) Fireproof,
    (2) Constructed so that no hazardous quantity of air, fluid or
flame can pass around or through the firewall, and,
    (3) Protected against corrosion,
    (e) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, engine control system components that are located in a
designated fire zone must be fire resistant or fireproof, as
applicable.
    (f) Unintentional accumulation of hazardous quantities of flammable
fluid within the engine must be prevented by draining and venting.
    (g) Any components, modules, or equipment, which are susceptible to
or are potential sources of static discharges or electrical fault
currents must be designed and constructed to be properly grounded to
the engine reference, in order to minimize the risk of ignition in
external areas where flammable fluids or vapors could be present.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 12, 2008.
Dorenda D. Baker,
 Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3271 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


memorandum
to:	Docket for Toxics MACT
from:	Christine daivs, Risk and Benefits Group
subject:	Ecosystem Effects for Proposed Rule
date:	3/9/2011

Due to space limitations, we were unable to include the full text for the ecosystem effects of mercury deposition in the preamble for the RIA and the Appropriate and Necessary Finding for the Toxics MACT proposed  rule.  We provide this memo to the docket as documentation of the ecosystem effects to support the information in the communication materials.
      5.3 IMPACT OF MERCURY ON ECOSYSTEMS AND WILDLIFE
            1.0.1 Introduction
      Deposition of mercury to waterbodies can also have an impact on ecosystems and wildlife. Mercury contamination is present in all environmental media with aquatic systems experiencing the greatest exposures due to bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation refers to the net uptake of a contaminant from all possible pathways and includes the accumulation that may occur by direct exposure to contaminated media as well as uptake from food.
      Atmospheric mercury enters freshwater ecosystems by direct deposition and through runoff from terrestrial watersheds. Once mercury deposits, it may be converted to organic methylmercury mediated primarily by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Methylation is enhanced in anaerobic and acidic environments, greatly increasing mercury toxicity and potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic foodwebs. A number of key biogeochemical controls influence the production of methylmercury in aquatic ecosystems. These include sulfur, pH, organic matter, iron, mercury "aging", and bacteria type and activity (Munthe et al.2007).
      Wet and dry deposition of oxidized mercury is a dominant pathway for bringing mercury to terrestrial surfaces. In forest ecosystems, elemental mercury may also be absorbed by plants stomatally, incorporated by foliar tissues and released in litterfall (Ericksen et al., 2003). Mercury in throughfall, direct deposition in precipitation, and uptake of dissolved mercury by roots (Rea et al., 2002) are also important in mercury accumulation in terrestrial ecosystems.
      Soils have significant capacity to store large quantities of atmospherically deposited mercury where it can leach into groundwater and surface waters. The risk of mercury exposure extends to insectivorous terrestrial species such as songbirds, bats, spiders, and amphibians that receive mercury deposition or from aquatic systems near the forest areas they inhabit (Bergeron et al. 2010a, b; Cristol et al. 2008; Rimmer et al. 2005; Wada et al. 2009 & 2010).
      Numerous studies have generated field data on the levels of mercury in a variety of wild species. Many of the data from these environmental studies are anecdotal in nature rather than representative or statistically designed studies. The body of work examining the effects of these exposures is growing but still incomplete given the complexities of the natural world. A large portion of the adverse effect research conducted to date has been carried out in the laboratory setting rather than in the wild; thus, conclusions about overarching ecosystem health and population effects are difficult to make at this time. In the sections that follow numerous effects have been identified at differing exposure levels.
            2.0.2 Effects on Fish
      A review of the literature on effects of mercury on fish (Crump and Trudeau, 2009) reports results for numerous species including trout, bass (large and smallmouth), northern pike, carp, walleye, salmon and others from laboratory and field studies. The effects studied are reproductive and include deficits in sperm and egg formation, histopathological changes in testes and ovaries, and disruption of reproductive hormone synthesis. These studies were conducted in areas from New York to Washington and while many were conducted by adding MeHg to water or diet many were conducted at current environmental levels. While we cannot determine at this time whether these reproductive deficits are affecting fish populations across the United States it should be noted that it is possible that over time reproductive deficits could have an effect on populations. Lower fish populations would conceivably impact the ecosystem services like recreational fishing derived from having healthy aquatic ecosystems quite apart from the effects of consumption advisories due to the human health effects of mercury.
      The Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur  -  Ecological Criteria (Final Report, 2008) presents information regarding the possible complementary effects of sulfur and mercury deposition. The ISA has concluded that there is a causal relationship between sulfur deposition and increased mercury methylation in wetlands and aquatic environments. This suggests that lowering the rate of sulfur deposition would also reduce mercury methylation thus alleviating the effects of aquatic acidification as well as the effects of mercury on fish.
            3.0.3 Effects on Birds
      In addition to effects on fish, mercury also affects avian species. In previous reports (EPA 1997 and CAMR 2005) much of the focus has been on large piscivorous species, in particular the common loon. The loon is most visible to the public during the summer breeding season on northern lakes and they have become an important symbol of wilderness in these areas (McIntyre and Barr 1997). A multitude of loon watch, preservation, and protection groups have formed over the past few decades and have been instrumental in promoting conservation, education, monitoring, and research of breeding loons (McIntyre and Evers 2000, Evers 2006). Significant adverse effects on breeding loons from mercury have been found to occur, including behavioral (reduced nest-sitting), physiological (flight feather asymmetry), and reproductive (chicks fledged/territorial pair) effects (Evers 2008, Burgess 2008) and reduced survival (Mitro, et al 2008). Additionally Evers et al. (2008) report that they believe that results from their study integrating the effects on the endpoints listed above and evidence from other studies the weight of evidence indicates that population-level effects negatively impacting population viability occur in parts of Maine and New Hampshire, and potentially in broad areas of the loon's range.
      Recently attention has turned to other piscivorous species such as the white ibis and great snowy egret. While considered to be fish-eating generally these wading birds have a diverse diet including crayfish, crabs, snails, insects and frogs. These species are experiencing a range of adverse effects due to exposure to mercury. The white ibis has been observed to have decreased foraging efficiency (Adams and Frederick 2008). Additionally ibises have been shown to exhibit decreased reproductive success and altered pair behavior at chronic exposure to levels of dietary MeHg commonly encountered by wild birds (Frederick and Jayasena 2010). These effects include significantly more unproductive nests, male/male pairing, reduced courtship behavior (head bobbing and pair bowing) and lower nestling production by exposed males. In this study a worst-case scenario suggested by the results could involve up to a 50% reduction in fledglings due to MeHg in diet. These estimates may be conservative if male/male pairing in the wild resulted in a shortage of partners for females and the effect of homosexual breeding were magnified. In egrets mercury has been implicated in the decline of the species in south Florida (Sepulveda, et al. 1999) and Hoffman (2010) has shown that egrets experience liver and possibly kidney effects. While ibises and egrets are most abundant in coastal areas and these studies were conducted in south Florida and Nevada, the ranges of ibises and egrets extend to a large portion of the United States. Ibis territory can range inland to Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee. Egret range covers virtually the entire United States except the mountain west. Insectivorous birds have also been shown to suffer adverse effects due to current levels of mercury exposure. These songbirds such as Bicknell's thrush, tree swallows and the great tit have shown reduced reproduction, survival, and changes in singing behavior. Exposed tree swallows produced fewer fledglings (Brasso 2008), lower survival (Hallinger 2010) and had compromised immune competence (Hawley 2009). The great tit has exhibited reduced singing behavior and smaller song repertoire in an area of high contamination in the vicinity of a metallurgic smelter in Flanders (Gorissen 2005). While these effects were small and would likely have little effect on population viability in such a short-lived species.

            4.0.4 Effects on Mammals
      In mammals adverse effects have been observed in mink and river otter collected in the wild in the northeast where atmospheric deposition from municipal waste incinerators and electric utilities are the largest sources (USEPA 1999), both fish eating species. For otter from Maine and Vermont maximum concentrations on Hg in fur nearly equal or exceed a concentration associated with mortality. Concentrations in liver for mink in Massachusetts/Connecticut and the levels in fur from mink in Maine exceed concentrations associated with acute mortality (Yates 2005). Adverse sub-lethal effects may be associated with lower Hg concentrations and consequently be more widespread than potential acute effects. These effects may include increased activity, poorer maze performance, abnormal startle reflex, and impaired escape and avoidance behavior (Scheuhammer et al. 2007). Conclusions
	The studies cited here provide a glimpse of the scope of mercury effects on wildlife particularly reproductive and survival effects at current exposure levels. These effects range across species from fish to mammals and spatially across a wide area of the United States. The literature is far from complete however. Much more research is required to establish a link between the ecological effects on wildlife and the effect on ecosystem services (services that the environment provides to people) for example recreational fishing, bird watching and wildlife viewing. EPA is not, however, currently able to quantify or monetize the benefits of reducing mercury exposures affecting provision of ecosystem services.

                  5.3.5 References
Adams, Evan M., and Frederick, Peter C. Effects of methylmercury and spatial complexity on foraging behavior and foraging efficiency in juvenile white ibises (Eudocimus albus). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol 27, No. 8, 2008.
Bergeron, CM., Bodinof, CM., Unrine, JM., Hopkins, WA. (2010a) Mercury accumulation along a contamination gradient and nondestructive indices of bioaccumulation in amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(4), 980-988.
Bergeron, CM., Bodinof, CM., Unrine, JM., Hopkins, WA. (2010b) Bioaccumulation and maternal transfer of mercury and selenium in amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(4), 989-997.
Brasso, Rebecka L., and Cristol, Daniel A. Effects of mercury exposure in the reproductive success of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology. 17:133-141, 2008.
Burgess, Neil M., and Meyer, Michael W. Methylmercury exposure associated with reduced productivity in common loons. Ecotoxicology. 17:83-91, 2008.
Cristol D. A., Brasso R. L., Condon A. M., Fovargue R. E., Friedman S. L.,  Hallinger K. K.,  Monroe A. P., White A. E.  (2008)  The movement of aquatic mercury through terrestrial food webs.  Science 320, 335 - 335.
Crump, Kate L., and Trudeau, Vance L. Mercury-induced reproductive impairment in fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol. 28, No. 5, 2009.
Ericksen, J. A., Gustin, M. S., Schorran, D. E., Johnson, D. W., Lindberg, S. E., & Coleman, J. S. (2003). Accumulation of atmospheric mercury in forest foliage. Atmospheric Environment, 37(12), 1613-1622.
Evers, D.C., 2006. Status assessment and conservation plan for the common loon (Gavia immer) in North America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, USA.
Evers, David C., Savoy, Lucas J., DeSorbo, Christopher R., Yates, David E., Hanson, William, Taylor, Kate M., Siegel, Lori S., Cooley, John H. Jr., Bank, Michael S., Major, Andrew, Munney, Kenneth, Mower, Barry F., Vogel, Harry S., Schoch, Nina, Pokras, Mark, Goodale, Morgan W., Fair, Jeff. Adverse effects from environmental mercury loads on breeding common loons. Ecotoxicology. 17:69-81, 2008.
Frederick, Peter, and Jayasena, Nilmini. Altered pairing behavior and reproductive success in white ibises exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of methylmercury. Proceedings of The Royal Society B. doi: 10-1098, 2010.
Gorissen, Leen, Snoeijs, Tinne, Van Duyse, Els, and Eens, Marcel. Heavy metal pollution affects dawn singing behavior in a small passerine bird. Oecologia. 145: 540-509, 2005.
Hallinger, Kelly K., Cornell, Kerri L., Brasso, Rebecka L., and Cristol, Daniel A. Mercury exposure and survival in free-living tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Ecotoxicology. Doi: 10.1007/s10646-010-0554-4, 2010.
Hawley, Dana M., Hallinger, Kelly K., Cristol, Daniel A. Compromised immune competence in free-living tree swallows exposed to mercury. Ecotoxicology. 18:499-503, 2009.
Hoffman, David J., Henny, Charles J., Hill, Elwood F., Grover, Robert A., Kaiser, James L., Stebbins, Katherine R. Mercury and drought along the lower Carson River, Nevada: III. Effects on blood and organ biochemistry and histopathology of snowy egrets and black-crowned night-herons on Lahontan Reservoir, 2002-2006. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 72: 20, 1223-1241, 2009.
McIntyre, J.W., Barr, J.F. 1997Common Loon (Gavia immer) in: Pool A, Gill F (eds) The Birds of North America. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, 313
McIntrye, J.W., and Evers, D.C.,(eds)2000. Loons: old history and new finding. Proceedings of a Symposium from the 1997 meeting, American Ornithologists' Union. North American Loon Fund, 15 August 1997, Holderness, NH, USA.
Mitro, Matthew G., Evers, David C., Meyer, Michael W., and Piper, Walter H. Common loon survival rates and mercury in New England and Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(3): 665-673, 2008.
Munthe, J., Bodaly, R. A., Branfireun, B. A., Driscoll, C. T., Gilmour, C. C., Harris, R., et al. (2007). Recovery of Mercury-Contaminated Fisheries. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(1), 33-44.
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S. E., Scherbatskoy, T., & Keeler, G. J. (2002). Mercury Accumulation in Foliage over Time in Two Northern Mixed-Hardwood Forests. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 133(1), 49-67.
Rimmer, C. C., McFarland, K. P., Evers, D. C., Miller, E. K., Aubry, Y., Busby, D., et al. (2005). Mercury Concentrations in Bicknell's Thrush and Other Insectivorous Passerines in Montane Forests of Northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology, 14(1), 223-240.
Scheuhammer, Anton M., Meyer Michael W., Sandheinrich, Mark B., and Murray, Michael W. Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio. Vol.36, No.1, 2007.
Sepulveda, Maria S., Frederick, Peter C., Spalding, Marilyn G., and Williams, Gary E. Jr. Mercury contamination in free-ranging great egret nestlings (Ardea albus) from southern Florida, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol. 18, No.5, 1999.
U.S EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur  -  Ecological Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/082F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment- RTP Division, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recorddisplay.cfm?deid+201485.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume V: Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds. EPA-452/R-97-007. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).  2005.  Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC., March; EPA report no.  EPA-452/R-05-003.  Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/mercury_ria_final.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).1999. 1999 National Emission Inventory Documentation and Data -- Final Version 3.0; Hazardous Air Pollutants Inventory -- FinalNEI Version 3; HAPS Summary Files. (12 December 2006;www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html)Wada, H. and Cristol, D.A. and McNabb, F.M.A. and Hopkins, W.A.  (2009) Suppressed adrenocortical responses and thyroid hormone levels in birds near a mercury-contaminated river.  Environmental Science & Technology 43(15), 6031-6038.
Wada., H., Yates, DE., Evers, DC., Taylor, RJ., Hopkins, WA. (2010) Tissue mercury concentrations and adrenocortical responses of female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) near a contaminated river. Ecotoxicology. 19(7), 1277-1284.
Yates, David E., Mayack, David T., Munney, Kenneth, Evers David C., Major, Andrew, Kaur, Taranjit, and Taylor, Robert J. Mercury levels in mink (Mustela vison) and river otter (Lonra canadensis) from northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology. 14, 263-274, 2005.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54760-54761]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-159-000]

Perryville Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Crowville Gas Storage Project
Amendment

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Crowville Gas Storage Project Amendment (Project) as proposed by
Perryville Gas Storage, LLC (Perryville) in the above referenced
docket. Perryville proposes to increase the working capacity of its two
previously certificated (Docket No. CP09-418-000) natural gas storage
caverns by 2.5 billion-cubic-feet each; and install three freshwater
supply wells, six brine disposal wells and eight groundwater monitoring
wells, all of which would be located in Franklin Parish, Louisiana.
    The EA assesses the potential impacts on the environment resulting
from construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). As described in the EA, the FERC staff has concluded that
approval of the proposed Project, with the implementation of
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for
distribution and public inspection at:
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888
First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area;
and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential impacts on the environment, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive
your comments in Washington, DC on or before September 26, 2011.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the
project docket numbers (CP11-159-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages the electronic filing of comments (eFiling) and
has dedicated expert staff to assist you by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address:
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the

proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, which can be reached by phone
at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).
Following the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number CP11-159 in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone toll free at
(866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: August 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22516 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 17560]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3368-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Georgia (FEMA-3368-EM), dated February 11, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 12, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
February 11, 2014.

    Bulloch and Candler Counties for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-06935 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P