[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76540-76542]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26011]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0165; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-02-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-15-
03, which applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx turbofan
engine models. AD 2015-15-03 precludes the use of certain full
authority digital engine control (FADEC) software on GEnx turbofan
engines. Since we issued AD 2015-15-03, GE implemented final design
changes that remove the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would
require removing a specific part and replacing it with a part eligible
for installation and specifying the FADEC software version for the
affected GEnx turbofan engines. We are proposing this AD to prevent
engine failure, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General
Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH
45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0165; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McGuire, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7120; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0165;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-02-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    On July 13, 2015, we issued AD 2015-15-03, Amendment 39-18212 (80
FR 42707, July 20, 2015), (``AD 2015-15-03''), for all GE GEnx-1B
turbofan engines with FADEC software, version B175 or earlier,
installed, and all GE GEnx-2B turbofan engines with FADEC software,
version C065 or earlier, installed. AD 2015-15-03 precludes the use of
FADEC software, version B175 or earlier, in GEnx-1B engines, and the
use of FADEC software, version C065 or earlier, in GEnx-2B engines. AD
2015-15-03 resulted from engine power loss due to ice crystal icing
conditions. We issued AD 2015-15-03 to prevent engine failure, loss of
thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2015-15-03 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2015-15-03, GE implemented final design changes
that remove the unsafe condition.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0241 R00, dated
March 16, 2016 that describes removal and installation procedures for
fan hub stator assembly booster outlet guide vane (BOGV); GE GEnx-2B SB
73-0041 R00, dated July 2, 2015 that describes reprograming procedures
for electronic engine control (EEC) software version C075; and GE GEnx-
1B SB 73-0044 R00, dated July 1, 2015 that describes reprograming
procedures for EEC software version B185.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require removing from service the GEnx-2B fan hub
stator assembly BOGV, P/N B1316-00720, and replacing with a part
eligible for installation. This NPRM would also specify the FADEC
software version for GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B engines.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 130 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 1 hour
per engine to comply with the software installation proposed by this
AD. We also estimate that 32 engines would require hardware
replacement, which would take about 60 hours per engine. Required parts
cost about $390,000 per engine. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $12,654,250.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking 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. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2015-15-03, Amendment 39-18212 (80 FR 42707, July 20, 2015), and adding
the following new AD:

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0165; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NE-02-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 3,
2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-15-03, Amendment 39-18212 (80 FR 42707,
July 20, 2015).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B and
GEnx-2B turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by final design changes that remove the
unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine failure,
loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not
operate any GE GEnx-1B engine with electronic engine control (EEC)
full authority digital engine control (FADEC) software, version B180
or earlier, installed.
    (2) Thirty days after the effective date of this AD, do not
operate any GE GEnx-2B engine with EEC FADEC software, version C068
or earlier, installed.
    (3) At the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
remove from service all GE GEnx-2B67, -2B67B, and -2B67/P fan hub
stator assembly booster outlet guide vanes, part number B1316-00720,
and replace with a part eligible for installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After removing any software, version B180 or earlier, for the GE
GEnx-1B engines; or software, version C068 or earlier, for the GE
GEnx-2B engines, do not operate those engines with any software,
version earlier than B180 or C068.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for
the following situations which do not constitute an engine shop
visit:
    (1) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without

subsequent maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
    (2) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of
replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance does
not constitute an engine shop visit.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 24, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26011 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63643]
[DOCID:fr09no07-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Notice of Fiscal Year 2008 Safety Data Improvement Program
(SaDIP) Grant Application Instructions and Materials

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is intended to announce the posting of the Fiscal
Year 2008 Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP) Grant Opportunity to
Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). A tentative schedule for the Fiscal

Year 2008 SaDIP grant application and award process is included with
the synopsis and application instructions. Grant awards are contingent
on passage of the FY 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation
appropriations bill, which includes FMCSA appropriations, by Congress
and approved by the U.S. President.

DATES: November 9, 2007.
    Submit comments or questions by: November 30, 2007.
    Responses will be available on Grants.gov by: December 14, 2007
    Application deadline: January 30, 2008
    Grant Awards: End of 2nd Quarter / Start of 3rd Quarter FY 2008

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Address all comments concerning This
notice to Betsy Benkowski, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (telephone<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Internet
address).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4128 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) established the SaDIP grant opportunity. The legislation
provides discretionary funding for the States to improve the quality of
crash and inspection data for large trucks and buses reported by the
States to FMCSA, as established in Section 31102 of Title 49, United
States Code. Eligible awardees include a State Agency, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guan,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Applicants must registrar with Grants.gov
to apply for funding (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp
). Registration with grants.gov may take two to five days

before the system will allow access to the grant application package.
Applications should be submitted in accordance with the instructions
provided and must be submitted in accordance with the instructions
provided and must be submitted electronically to FMCSA through the
Grants.gov Web site. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number for the Safety Data Improvement Program is 20.234. Potential
applicants will be required to install Pure Edge Viewer in order to se
the form interface under the ``Download the Application Package''
hyperlink.
    Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to register their e-
mail address with the system to receive notice of modifications made to
the synopsis or application instructions.

    Issued on: November 6, 2007.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-22055 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-MC-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4622-4623]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0290]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt forty-six individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective January 28, 2010. The exemptions
expire on January 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also
available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On December 11, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from forty-six individuals and
requested comments from the public (74 FR 65836). The public comment
period closed on January 11, 2010, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the forty-six applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation (49 CFR
391.41(b)(3)).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal
Register Notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777)
Federal Register Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These forty-six applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 34
years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted
in loss of consciousness or seizure, that

required the assistance of another person, or resulted in impaired
cognitive function without warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with
one year of stability following any such episode). In each case, an
endocrinologist has verified that the driver has demonstrated
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes, received
education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin
regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions,
including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the December 11, 2009 Federal
Register Notice; therefore, they will not be repeated in this notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the forty-six exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts Bob A. Bauer, Michael P. Berger, William D. Blosch,
Michael Bohlen, Bradley N. Brown, Victor M. Brunner, Tom L. Cooley,
Wallace E. Crouse, Jr., Jesse A. DeCoux, Robert G. Dohman, Jr., Andrew
J. Dreyer, Danny E. Edmondson, Steven W. Edwards, Mark W. Espeaignette,
Andrew C. Everett, Paul J. Failla, Wendell G. Fordham, Eugene G.
Friedman, Edward L. Gilbert, Donald W. Hansen, Joseph S. Hernandez,
Corrine J. Hoffman, Robert E. Holden, Shondell S. Ivy, Kevin Joaquin,
Jordan T. Johnston, Jere W. Kirkpatrick, Joshua J. Kramer, Kyle A.
Leach, Robert J. Lewis, Jr., Mitchell D. Luft, Martin E. Marandola,
Richard W. McNeil, Stacy R. Oberholzer, Michael S. Ogle, Walter L.
Patrick, Clifford A. Peters, Richard L. Piercefield, Steven F. Riley,
Kevin A. Roginski, Herman Smalls, Jr., Bruce M. Stockton, Rick M. Tiu,
Todd R. Vickers, Shaun M. Wheeler and Charles A. Witt from the ITDM
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under
``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: January 22, 2010.
Charles A. Horan III,
Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-1732 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19659]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08429]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9926-12-Region-1]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on
Consent for Removal Action: Former Synergy Site, Claremont, New
Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement
agreement and order on consent for conducting removal action at the
Former Synergy Superfund Site in Claremont, New Hampshire with the
settling party, AmeriGas Propane, L.P. The proposed settlement calls
for AmeriGas Propane, L.P. to conduct the removal action and allows the
settling party to submit a claim(s) for reimbursement to the Hazardous
Substance Superfund (``Fund'') for its necessary costs incurred in
completing the removal action, but in no event shall settling party's
total claim(s) against the Fund under the proposed settlement exceed
the sum of $1,500,000; any costs incurred beyond this sum shall be
assumed by AmeriGas Propane, L.P. In addition to conducting the removal
action, AmeriGas Propane, L.P. will create a contingency fund of
$75,000 for the City of Claremont, New Hampshire to use for future
contingencies related to the site. In exchange, EPA will provide
AmeriGas Propane, L.P. with a covenant not to sue or take
administrative action against it, or its related corporate entities for
the work and future response costs incurred at the site. The settlement
has been approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division
of the United States Department of Justice. For 30 days following the
date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written
comments relating to the settlement. The United States will consider
all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which
indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for
public inspection at 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by May 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to RuthAnn Sherman, Senior
Enforcement Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (OES04-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912 (Telephone
No.<PHONE_NUMBER>) and should refer to: In re: Former Synergy Superfund
Site, U.S. EPA Docket No: 01-2015-0027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed settlement may
be obtained from RuthAnn Sherman, Senior Enforcement Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
(OES04-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to sections 111(a)(2), 112, and
122(b)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9611(a)(2), 9612, and 9622(b)(1), in
this proposed administrative settlement agreement and order on consent
for removal action concerning the Former Synergy Superfund Site in
Claremont, New Hampshire, the settling party, AmeriGas Propane, L.P.
may submit a claim for reimbursement to the Hazardous Substance
Superfund for its necessary costs incurred in completing the removal
action, but in no event shall settling party's total claim(s) against
the Fund under the proposed settlement exceed the sum of $1,500,000.
EPA's total contribution will be no more than $1,500,000; any costs
incurred beyond this sum shall be assumed by AmeriGas Propane L.P. In
addition to conducting the removal action, the settling party shall
create a contingency fund of $75,000 to the City of Claremont, New
Hampshire to provide for future contingencies related to the site. In
exchange, EPA will provide AmeriGas Propane, L.P. with a covenant not
to sue or take administrative action against it, or its related
corporate entities, under sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act for the work and
future response costs incurred at the site. The settlement has been
approved by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the
United States Department of Justice.

    Dated: April 1, 2015.
Nancy Barmakian,
Acting Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration.
[FR Doc. 2015-08429 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Memorandum

TO:	Docket for rulemaking, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Leather Finishing Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review" (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0194)
DATE:		October 24, 2018
SUBJECT: 	Final Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk and Technology Review: Leather Finishing Operations Source Category

This document addresses the economic impacts of the final amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Leather Finishing Operations to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is required to conduct.

The total national cost to comply with the final rule is estimated to be $832 in 2017 dollars, which is incurred through facilities familiarizing themselves with the rule. This cost is a one-time cost that will be incurred in the first year following promulgation of the final amendments. There are no additional emission control costs or additional emission reductions associated with this rule.

There are currently four existing leather finishing operations that were identified as being subject to this action. The estimated cost of $832 is comprised of equal costs incurred by each of the four affected facilities, with each facility estimated to incur one-time labor costs of approximately $208 in order to become familiar with the rule. The methodology for the estimation of the cost is detailed in the memorandum titled Costs for the Leather Finishing Operations Source Category Risk and Technology Review  -  Final Amendments, which can be found in the docket for this action.

Each of the four affected facilities is owned by an ultimate parent entity which has annual sales above one million dollars. The one-time estimated costs are less than 0.01 percent of sales for each of these entities, three of which are small businesses. These costs are not expected to result in business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit loss. U.S. EPA expects that this action will not have a significant economic impact on the affected entities. Therefore, this regulation is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (or SISNOSE) according to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In addition, there are no impacts sufficiently significant to warrant analysis or action as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Finally, no impacts on employment are expected given the minimal economic impact of the action on the affected firms.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68023-68024]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93649; File No. SR-BOX-2021-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rules Governing the Trading of
Equity Securities on the Exchange Through a Facility of the Exchange
Known as BSTX LLC

November 23, 2021.
    On May 12, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or ``BOX'') 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 rules
governing the listing and trading of equity securities on the Exchange
through a facility of the Exchange to be known as BSTX LLC. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 2, 2021.\3\ On July 13, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\4\ 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 disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On August 18, 2021, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and
superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed.\6\ On August
27, 2021, the Commission published the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, for notice and comment and instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92017 (May 25,
2021), 86 FR 29634 (``Notice''). Comments on the proposed rule
change can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2021-06/srbox202106.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92387, 86 FR 38140
(July 19, 2021). The Commission designated August 31, 2021 as the
date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove,
the proposed rule change.
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2021-06/srbox202106-9159349-247726.pdf.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92796, 86 FR 49416
(September 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on
June 2, 2021.\9\ November 29, 2021 is 180

days from that date, and January 28, 2022 is 240 days from that date.
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within
which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule
change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule
change and the issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection therewith. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ designates January 28,
2022 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(File No. SR-BOX-2021-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25987 Filed 11-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11363-11366]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM20-8-000]

Virtualization and Cloud Computing Services

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks
comments regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with the
use of virtualization and cloud computing services in association with
bulk electric system operations, as well as whether barriers exist in
the Commission-approved Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards that impede the voluntary adoption of virtualization or cloud
computing services.

DATES: Initial Comments are due April 27, 2020, and Reply Comments are
due May 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native

applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
     Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting
comments, see the Comment Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Ephraim Eke, (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kevin Ryan, (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), the
Commission seeks comments on the potential benefits and risks
associated with the use of virtualization and cloud computing services
in association with bulk electric system operations. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on whether barriers exist in the Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards, which are
developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)
and approved by the Commission, that impede the voluntary adoption of
virtualization or cloud computing services.
    2. This NOI is an outgrowth of discussions concerning the potential
benefits and risks associated with the adoption of virtualization and
cloud computing services for bulk electric system operations at the
Commission's June 27, 2019 Reliability Technical Conference and the
March 28, 2019 Commission/Department of Energy (DOE) Security
Investments for Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The records of the June 27, 2019 Reliability Technical
Conference and March 28, 2019 Commission/DOE conference are
available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in
Docket Nos. AD19-13-000 and AD19-12-000, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission intends to use the record developed in this
proceeding to determine whether it would be appropriate, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act, to direct that NERC develop
modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to facilitate the
voluntary adoption of virtualization and cloud computing services by
registered entities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

A. Virtualization

    4. Virtualization is the process of creating virtual, as opposed to
physical, versions of computer hardware to minimize the amount of
physical computer hardware resources required to perform various
functions.\3\ Virtualization is commonly used in business applications
and is managed through centralized software, referred to as a
hypervisor, that manages multiple virtual computer resources that can
be used by different processes, customers, clients, and users. A
virtual environment can be a single program and the operating system on
which it executes; a combination of multiple programs and associated
operating systems, networks, computing environments, storage devices,
or other such digital environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Guide to
Security for Full Virtualization Technologies, Special Publication
800-125 (Jan. 2011), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-125.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Virtualization can be used on a stand-alone basis in a bulk
electric system control center environment to reduce capital and
operating costs, increase the efficiency of existing computing assets,
and improve incident recovery, among other reasons. Virtualization
offers the potential for cost savings in asset management, including
minimizing the need for physical assets, which require building space
and procuring and maintaining physical computer hardware. A virtualized
system can also be more quickly recovered than physical systems in the
event of a malfunction or compromise.
    6. Virtualization is a necessary technical enabler if the functions
of BES Cyber Systems are to be moved to a cloud computing environment
since a customer choosing to migrate one or more on-premise systems to
the cloud will need to virtualize those systems for use in the
cloud.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ BES Cyber System is defined as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf. The acronym BES refers to the bulk electric
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cloud Computing

    7. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Information Technology Laboratory Computer Security Resource Center
defines cloud computing as a ``model for enabling convenient, on-demand
network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources
(e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can
be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or
service provider interaction.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NIST, The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, Special
Publication 800-145 (Sept. 2011), https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The primary cloud service models include Infrastructure as a
Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service
(SaaS). These three cloud service models provide different levels of
flexibility and control to organizations choosing to use cloud
computing services. Entities may use cloud computing services for the
simple storage of data or, as discussed above, to host and operate
virtual systems used for bulk electric system operations. As a general
matter, cloud computing enables entities to focus resources on
providing core services, such as transmission or generation of electric
energy, while outsourcing the IT infrastructure required to support
them.
    9. Leveraging cloud computing services in technology and business
processes provides entities the opportunity to realize benefits in
their IT operations, including greater scalability, greater flexibility
and lower capital investment. Cloud computing services provide
computing power and storage at a lower cost than maintaining in-house
IT infrastructure while providing the capability for almost
instantaneous expansion of services. Other potential benefits from the
adoption of cloud computing services include enhanced access to data
and applications due to the inherent redundancy and multiple pathways
used to access cloud computing services.

C. Commission Technical Conferences

    10. On June 27, 2019, the Commission held its annual Reliability
Technical Conference to discuss four fundamental topics, including the
impact of cloud-based services and virtualization on bulk electric
system operations, planning and security.\6\ The technical conference
addressed, among other things: (1) Evolution of cloud computing and
virtualization of cloud computing and virtualization technologies; (2)
outsourcing risk; (3) Reliability Standards modifications; (4)
appropriate systems for a cloud environment; and

(5) security and non-security related benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FERC, Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments,
Docket No. AD19-13-000 (Jul. 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In general, panelists at the Reliability Technical Conference
acknowledged the emergence of virtualization and cloud computing
services and indicated that the Commission should take some action to
address the use of these technologies for bulk electric system data
management. Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) recommended
that the Commission further engage industry and cloud service providers
in one or more technical conferences to clarify issues and direct
timely industry action to establish a way forward with changes to CIP
Reliability Standards specifically to accommodate the use of cloud
computing services.\7\ MISO explained that the benefits of
virtualization include enhanced system recovery. In particular, MISO
noted that during the past year it was able to recover virtual assets
quicker than traditional computing assets when testing backup and
recovery processes. American Public Power Association and Large Public
Power Council, moreover, stated that if done with care, cloud computing
solutions can reduce risk, increase flexibility and improve the
security posture of the bulk electric system.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Reliability Technical Conference, Docket No. AD19-13-
000, Tr. 118:6-12 (Rosenthal).
    \8\ Tr. 114:12-14 (Jacobs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. During the Commission/DOE Security Investments for Energy
Infrastructure Technical Conference on March 28, 2019, Southwest Power
Pool (SPP) urged more flexibility regarding the use of cloud computing.
SPP stated that it evaluated a number of products that would enable it
to do a better job of protecting system data. SPP asserted the view
that the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards do not allow
cloud-based technologies despite the fact that the vast majority of new
products from many of its vendors are cloud-based. As an example, SPP
stated that it:

believes that it cannot deploy the required CIP controls for certain
system information were it to be stored on externally-hosted servers
(i.e., ``the cloud''). Yet, we are finding that more and more
vendors have flagship products that require all or a portion of CIP
system information to be stored off-premises. This was a driving
factor in our recent replacement of our service management software
and has also been a complicating factor in the evaluation of
vulnerability scanning and vulnerability management solutions.
Hence, SPP has given weight to solutions that are more expensive or
do not provide as much value as some cloud alternatives. The
standards should not be so prescriptive as to force SPP to avoid
industry trends that have proven to be secure, but not necessarily
compliant.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Nick Brown, Prepared Statement for Commission/DOE
Security Investments for Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference,
Docket No. AD19-12-000, at 3 (filed Apr. 2, 2019).

    13. The concerns reflected in the comments from the two recent
technical conferences have prompted the issuance of this NOI to seek
additional comments on the benefits and risks associated with the use
of virtualization and cloud computing services in association with bulk
electric system operations. Further, to the extent that there are
barriers in the currently-effective CIP Reliability Standards to their
use, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate for the
Commission to direct action to facilitate the voluntary adoption of
virtualization and cloud computing services.

II. Request for Comments

    14. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comments on the
potential benefits and risks associated with the use of virtualization
and cloud computing services, as well as whether barriers may exist in
the CIP Reliability Standards that impede the adoption of
virtualization or cloud computing. Specifically, the Commission seeks
comments on four general topics as part of this inquiry: (A) Scope of
potential use of virtualization and cloud computing services; (B)
potential benefits and risks associated with virtualization and cloud
computing services; (C) potential impediments to adopting
virtualization and cloud computing services; and (D) potential use of
new and emerging technologies in the current CIP standards framework.
    15. In the following sections, we pose questions that commenters
should address in their submissions. However, commenters need not
address every topic or answer every question identified below.

A. Scope of Potential Use of Virtualization and Cloud Computing
Services

    16. As discussed above, virtualization and cloud computing services
offer a wide variety of potential uses in the context of users, owners
and operators of the bulk electric system. Some entities may choose to
utilize the cloud simply for data storage. Other entities may rely on
virtualization and cloud storage to operate systems that control one or
more core functions. Potential uses may include one or more of the BES
reliability operating services described in the Guidelines and
Technical Basis section of Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber
Security--BES Cyber System Categorization).\10\ Specifically, it is
possible that either virtualization or cloud computing services could
be leveraged for the following reliability operating services:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Reliability Standard CIP-002-5.1a (Cyber Security--BES
Cyber System Categorization), Guidelines and Technical Basis at 17-
18.

[ssquf] Dynamic Response to BES conditions
[ssquf] Balancing Load and Generation
[ssquf] Controlling Frequency (Real Power)
[ssquf] Controlling Voltage (Reactive Power)
[ssquf] Managing Constraints
[ssquf] Monitoring & Control
[ssquf] Restoration of BES
[ssquf] Situational Awareness
[ssquf] Inter-Entity Real-Time Coordination and Communication

    17. Using BES reliability operating services as a point of
reference to distinguish among possible applications of virtualization
and cloud computing services in bulk electric system operations:

    A1. Identify and discuss which BES reliability operating
services referenced above could be implemented in a virtualized
environment.
    A2. Identify and discuss which BES reliability operating
services referenced above could be implemented in a cloud computing
environment.
    A3. Identify and discuss any other BES reliability operating or
support services that could be implemented in a virtualized
environment.
    A4. Identify and discuss any other BES reliability operating,
data storage or support services that could be implemented in a
cloud computing environment.

B. Potential Benefits and Risks Associated With Virtualization and
Cloud Computing Services

    18. The Commission seeks comment on the potential benefits and
risks associated with virtualization and cloud computing services:

    B1. What are the potential benefits associated with adopting
virtualization for the BES reliability operating services identified
in response to Questions A1 and A3?
    B2. Are there risks associated with adopting virtualization for
the BES reliability operating services identified in response to
Questions A1 and A3? If risks exist, discuss whether these risks can
be effectively mitigated by a responsibility entity.
    B3. What are the potential benefits associated with adopting
cloud computing services for the BES reliability operating services,
data storage and support services identified in response to
Questions A2 and A4?
    B4. Are there risks associated with adopting cloud computing
services for the BES reliability operating services data storage

and support services identified in response to Questions A2 and A4?
If risks exist, discuss whether these risks can be effectively
mitigated by a responsible entity.
    B5. What are the potential benefits of relying on third-party
assessments to ensure the secure use of virtualization and cloud
computing services for BES reliability operations and support
services?
    B6. Discuss any risks associated with relying on third party
assessments to ensure the secure use of virtualization and cloud
computing services for BES reliability operations and support
services and potential solutions to mitigate those risks.

C. Potential Impediments to Adopting Virtualization and Cloud Computing
Services

    19. As discussed above, during the Commission's 2019 annual
Reliability Technical Conference, several commenters alluded to the
fact that cloud-based offerings continue to increase as vendors are
moving more of their services to the cloud.\11\ Commenters further
asserted that there is uncertainty on how virtualization and cloud
computing services can be leveraged within the existing CIP framework.
Similarly, at the March 2019 Commission/DOE Security Investments for
Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference, a panelist asserted that
there is uncertainty among registered entities on whether the CIP
Reliability Standards allow cloud-based technologies ``despite the fact
that the majority of new products from many vendors are cloud-based.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See June 27, 2019 annual Reliability Technical Conference,
Transcript pages 113 and 115-116.
    \12\ See March 28, 2019, Commission/DOE Security Investments for
Energy Infrastructure Technical Conference, Transcript page 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. In light of the concerns expressed at these technical
conferences, the Commission seeks comment on potential challenges with
how the implementation of virtualization and cloud computing
technologies will fit into the framework of the CIP Reliability
Standards, and possible solutions to those challenges:

    C1. Provide comment on the validity of the panelists' concern
discussed above and discuss the extent to which the trend toward
cloud-based services could affect reliable and secure bulk electric
system operations.
    C2. Are there any technical challenges in implementing
virtualization technology for the BES reliability operating services
identified in response to Question A1 that result from the current
CIP Reliability Standards? Discuss how the CIP Reliability Standards
could be augmented to address these challenges.
    C3. Are there any challenges in implementing virtualization
technology for the BES reliability operating services identified in
response to Question A1 that result from compliance obligations
associated with the CIP Reliability Standards? Discuss how the CIP
Reliability Standards could be augmented to address these
challenges.
    C4. Are there any technical challenges in implementing cloud
computing technology for the BES reliability operating services
identified in response to Question A2 that result from the current
CIP Reliability Standards? Discuss how the CIP Reliability Standards
could be augmented to address these challenges.
    C5. Are there any challenges in implementing cloud computing
technology for the BES reliability operating services identified in
response to Question A2 that result from compliance obligations
associated with the CIP Reliability Standards? Discuss how the CIP
Reliability Standards could be augmented to address these
challenges.

D. Potential Use of New and Emerging Technologies in the Current CIP
Standards Framework

    21. The Commission seeks comment on potential new and emerging
technologies beyond virtualization and cloud computing that responsible
entities may be interested in adopting for the BES reliability
operating services and if the CIP Reliability Standards would allow
these technologies to be adopted.

    D1. In addition to virtualization and clouding computing,
discuss whether the CIP Reliability Standards limit the ability to
take full advantage of new and emerging technologies for BES
reliability operating services. Explain the types of new
technologies, the potential benefits and how the CIP Reliability
Standards may limit their use.

III. Comment Procedures

    22. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due April 27, 2020, and Reply Comments are due May 27,
2020. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM20-8-000, and must include
the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable,
and their address.
    23. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word-processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word-processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    24. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    25. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

IV. Document Availability

    26. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    27. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    28. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: February 20, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03928 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
           OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
           OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

DATE:January 8, 2021

SUBJECT:Documentation of Phone Conference with Nisus Corporation

FROM:John Bradfield (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0133
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the phone conference between John Bradfield of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with Greg Baumann and Anna Crowder of Nisus Corporation on December 8, 2020 regarding manufactured preservatives for use in the wood preserving process. This information will be used in the technology review for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wood Preserving Area Sources (Subpart QQQQQQ).

I.  New Preservative Technology

Q1. What new preservatives and/or active ingredients have been introduced into the wood preserving industry since 2007? What products are they used on? What are the relative costs for new/old preservatives?

Nisus is new to Copper Naphthenate. Nisus registered its Copper Naphthenate product in 2011. Prior to that, Nisus had focused exclusively on Borate products. Copper Naphthenate is not a new product, of course.  It was identified as a preservative in the 19th century, began to be manufactured commercially in the 1920's in Europe, and in the 1950's in the U.S. Nisus entered the Copper Naphtenate market for several reasons. The only manufacturer was planning to end production; as a large company, a small market product like Copper Naphthenate did not match up well with their business model. EPA encouraged Nisus to take on the product since it was the only general wood preservative available to consumers. As a small company, a small market product like Copper Naphthenate was easy for Nisus to take on. Since the process had the EPA's attention, the registration proceeded quickly.  Nisus is the major producer of Copper Naphthenate; there are no other current U.S. producers that they are aware of.

Another preservative product that Nisus has registered is Oxine Copper (Copper-8-Quinolinolate).  It is already widely used as a sap stain and is AWPA listed for treating mold, fungi and termites in above ground wood applications. Unlike the green tinted products, Oxine Copper imparts a nice, golden color to the wood, a potential marketing plus. It's not one of our products but another relatively new product is DCOI, sometimes referred to as DCOIT.

Q2. Are there new preservatives and/or active ingredients currently being evaluated/registered under FIFRA? If yes, what types?

We are not aware of any new active ingredients under consideration. The wood preservation industry doesn't develop new pesticides, it's too expensive generally. In the past new treatments have been developed based on products developed by the agriculture or biocide pesticide industry, which has the market and capital for pesticide development.

Q3. Is it easier/cheaper to control HAP emissions from wood preservatives through P2 (material/ingredient substitution) or add-on controls?

Nisus doesn't own any plants that treat wood. Nisus does not get involved in any plant pollution control processes except to help customers. Regarding preservation treatment use at the facility, Nisus provides information on product dilution rates based on the label.

Q4. Are there any "greener" alternatives to creosote?  What are the technical issues for railroad ties/switches and/or utility poles?

Copper Naphthenate can be considered a greener alternative to creosote in several ways. Copper Naphthenate is a general use, not a restricted use, pesticide; it is safe enough to be purchased and used by consumers.  Only Copper Naphthenate and DCOI are general use pesticides. All other pesticides can only be sold commercially to treatment facilities and used by state certified applicators.  Consumers can't purchase restricted use pesticides without a state license.  Copper Naphthenate does not contain any Hazardous Air Pollutants of concern. One technical advantage is that railroad ties that have Copper Naphthenate in them don't drip in place like creosote can. Consequently, some railroads prefer Copper Naphthenate for bridge ties. Copper Naphthenate's environmental footprint is relatively good. Borate pretreatment for ties is also perceived to be a green treatment and enhances product lifetimes. About 90% of railroad ties are creosote but there is steady growth in the Copper Naphthenate market.

The use of Copper Naphthenate in utility poles is small but growing. Because of its environmental impact, some utilities have used Copper Naphthenate nearly exclusively for years. Copper Naphthenate and CCA have the technical advantage of not dripping. Both pentachlorophenol and creosote can drip and be messy at the base of a pole. Copper Naphthenate and CCA are also less conductive than pentachlorophenol and creosote poles. Climbing Copper Naphthenate poles is not an issue while CCA poles need a secondary treatment to improve its climbing characteristics. Pentachlorophenol is the main product used for utility poles, followed by CCA. Creosote and Copper Naphthenate have a small part of the utility pole market. The announcement that pentachlorophenol production would be ending means that the utility pole market will be changing.

Q5. How are companies reducing HAP emissions from creosote?  We noted permits with specific naphthalene content (mass fraction, by weight) limits for incoming materials and total facility emission limits for naphthalene, POM, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline.

Nisus is not in the creosote business and does not have any information on this subject.

Q6. We also noted some facilities using add-on controls (e.g., condenser/ scrubber systems) to reduce HAP/VOC emissions from creosote operations.  Are there new (since 2007) creosote mixtures or solutions being used today?  What was the motivation  -  odor issues?

Nisus is not in the creosote business and does not have any information on this subject.

Q7. Are there any HAP issues/concerns with fire retardants?  Most seem to be borates and contain no HAP.

No. Nisus markets a zinc borate to be used in wood products as a pesticide, generally not as a fire retardant. Zinc borate has no HAP, but because of the zinc, requires workplace protection to avoid breathing dust containing zinc borate.

Q8. What Nisus products can meet which AWPA standards? (AWPA U1, UC3B, UC4A, UC4B, UC4C, 5A, 5B, 5CU1, UC3BU1, UC3BU1, UC3B
Copper Naphthenate:  UC3A, UC3B, UC4A, UC4B, UC4C
ZB (Zinc Borate): UC1, UC2 and UC3A
Copper 8-quinolinolate:  UC1, UC2, UC3A and UC3B
SBX (water soluble borates):  UC1, UC2
SBX is also permitted as a dual-treatment for crossties when followed up with an over-treatment of Creosote or Copper naphthenate  -  this would be UC4A, UC4B and UC4C.

II.  Existing Preservative Technology

Q1. Pentachlorophenol (PCP or Penta) is still used for some utility poles and other outdoor/commercial applications. It typically has some associated HAP (dioxin) emissions from impurities  -  permits show some facilities have switched, but not all  -  is the industry waiting to see if another manufacturer steps in?  Are impurity levels better today than pre-2007? (

Nisus is not in the pentachlorophenol business.  However, because of the pentachlorophenol ban under the Stockholm convention, Canada is proposing cancelling its registration and many pentachlorophenol users are switching to Copper Naphthenate. Changeover requires cleaning and produces hazardous waste with unused penta. Also, some equipment metals, primarily in pumps, may not be compatible with Copper Naphthenate, and require a relatively easy changeout.

Q2. CCA was discontinued for residential/household use in 2003 but is still used for outdoor/commercial applications. It was typically replaced with ACQ or CA (which contain no HAP)  -  permits show several facilities have switched, but not all  -  why not?

Nisus is not in the CCA, Ammoniacal Copper Quaternary or Copper Azole business and does not have any information on this subject.

Q3. Some permit application changes mentioned industry concerns about a possible "quat" shortage and switching from ACQ to CA products.  Was that a real issue/concern? (Relevant to Nisus?)

Nisus is not in the Ammoniacal Copper Quaternary business but understands that there is a Quaternary shortage because of its use as a disinfectant and the Covid pandemic.  Quaternary comes from China and has a tariff.

Q4. Nisus indicates in their corporate history that Copper Naphthenate was added to the product list when other preservative manufacturers were exiting the market for the product and a lapse in the EPA registration was possible. Why had the preservative fallen out of favor?

As noted above, Nisus was encouraged by EPA to keep Copper Naphthenate available. EPA expedited the registration process.

Q5. Is Nisus aware of any companies using add on controls (e.g. scrubbers, etc) to control odors or emissions associated with Copper Naphthenate application (see Q6 regarding creosote above)?

No.  Copper Naphthenate does have odor in concentrated form, but after it is diluted, usually by a factor of 8 or more, the odor is diminished.

Q6. There are reports of odors from Copper Naphthenate products.  What are the causes of the odors?  Is there a standard practice to reduce odors?

Napthenic acid, a principal component of Copper Naphthenate production, is a petrochemical byproduct, a byproduct of jet fuel production. Currently, the byproduct is concentrated by a processor and distilled by a third party and is purchased by Nisus. Most Carboxylic acids are 12-16 chain compounds and have an odor.  Our suppliers are having some success in further refining their product, which will allow us to reduce the odor. Basically, many of the compounds that volatilize are being removed.  The only products where there is an odor issue are is in the topical application products, which are frequently sold as a booster for treated product that are in service.

Q7. Are there Naphthalene emissions from Copper Naphthenate products?

Napthalene is not a component of copper naphthenate, despite the similarity in their names.

Q8. How long have borate products been marketed as insecticides?

Nisus was the first to market borates, beginning as a log home treatment, in the 1980's.

Q9. Borates are generally expected to leach from wood upon exterior exposures. Nisus markets borate pre-treatment products designed to enhance primary treatments. Do subsequent treatments following the borate pre-treatment reduce borate leaching? Does Nisus market a `stand-alone' borate product that can be used in exterior applications?

When applied as a surface treatment, the Borate is allowed to soak in for a several days or sometimes longer. After it dries, then the product is pressure treated with Copper Naphthenate or creosote. The Borate makes the product a better treated product and the Copper Naphthenate or creosote locks the borate in place, so it won't leach out. Currently, this dual treatment is generally only used in railroad ties.

III.  Preservative Treatment/Process

Q1. Are there new processes involving pre-, dual-, or post-application for Copper Naphthenate?  We noted things like a secondary emulsion treatment for CCA treated poles and KDAT for water borne treatments by some suppliers.

See our answer above. Copper Naphthenate is an oil-based product and does not require further treatment to get the advantages of an oil-based surface, which is desirable in utility poles for climbing.

Q2. Are there any anticipated changes in treatments, applications, treatment processes or any notable process changes that have occurred since 2007?

See our answer above regarding the changeover in the use of pentachlorophenol. Treatment controls that can be required for facilities using creosote and pentachlorophenol are not required for Copper Naphthenate treatment processes.  Controls include mechanical control of door openings and sprayer applications.

IV.  Wood Products

Q1. Are there new (since 2007) wood products being pressure- or heat-treated with preservatives that we need to consider?

Solid wood packing frequently now requires insecticide treatment or heat treatment.  But for heavy duty wood preservative products there are no new products on the market.

V.  Green Certifiation

Q1. What green certifications do Nisus and Nisus customers participate in?

For residential markets, we work with the Green Building Council and in the commercial market we work with LEED.  For organic requirements, we work with OMRI, the Organic Materials Review Institute.