schedule that is consistent with the baghouse manufacturer's
instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (f) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (d)(9) of
this section, shall meet the specification and requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) or less.
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide output of
relative PM loadings.
    (3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (4) The owner shall install and operate the bag leak detection
system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-
98-015, Office of Air quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  60.17) or the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner shall not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP manual required
under paragraph (b) of this section. The owner cannot increase the
sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by
more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the
baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the owner shall install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (g) The owner shall include in the SOP manual required by paragraph
(b) of this section a corrective action plan that specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a minimum, the
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm
as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm shall
be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (2) The cause of the alarm shall be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
    (h) Baghouses equipped with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions from any source
subject to the PM and opacity emission standards in Sec.  60.122 are
exempt from the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection
system. The owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop across each HEPA filter system daily. If the pressure drop is
outside the limit(s) specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or
operator shall take appropriate corrective measures, which may include
but not be limited to those given in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of
this section.
    (1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
    (2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
    (3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices
    (4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (i) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP)
used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the PM and
opacity emission standards in Sec.  60.122 are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system.
    (j) If a wet scrubber is used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the PM emissions standards for blast and reverberatory furnaces
specified in Sec.  60.122(a), the owner or operator shall monitor and
record the pressure drop and water flow rate of the wet scrubber during
the initial

performance or periodic compliance test conducted to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emissions limit under Sec.  60.122(a).
Thereafter, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop and water flow rate values at least once every hour and maintain
the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels no lower than 30
percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate measured during the
initial performance or compliance test.
    (k) During the initial performance test required by Sec.
60.123(a), or any periodic performance test required by Sec.
60.123(b), the owner or operator shall establish the value or range of
values of the monitoring parameter(s) for each control device used to
comply with the PM and opacity emission standards specified in Sec.
60.122.
    (l) If an affected source is subject to the monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead Smelting) and those
requirements are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section,
compliance with the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart X also demonstrates compliance with the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (k) of this section.

Sec.  60.125  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable
notification and recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  60.7 and
the reporting requirements specified in the NSPS General Provisions
Sec.  60.19.
    (1) Records shall be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  60.7(f). However,
electronic recordkeeping and reporting may be used if suitable for the
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
    (2) Records shall be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec.  60.7(f).
    (b) The SOP manual required in Sec.  60.124(b) shall be submitted
to the Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of
the initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
    (c) The owner or operator shall maintain for a period of 2 years,
records of the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of
this section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec.  60.124(d) as part of the practices described in the SOP
manual for baghouses required under Sec.  60.124(b).
    (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control PM emissions from blast or
reverberatory furnaces as required in Sec.  60.124(j).
    (5) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (6) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
    (7) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system
specified in Sec.  60.124(d)(9).
    (8) Records maintained as part of the practices described in the
SOP manual for baghouses required under Sec.  60.124(b), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed, and
the corrective actions taken.
    (9) Record of the periods when the pressure drop and water flow
rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive sources dropped
below the levels established in Sec.  60.124(j), and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
    (10) Records of the rationale for the control device monitoring
parameter value(s), established as specified in Sec.  60.124(k),
monitoring frequency, and averaging time. Include all data and
calculations used to develop the value and a description of why the
value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable emission standard.
    (d) In addition to the reporting requirements specified in Sec.
60.7 and Sec.  60.19, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the initial and periodic performance tests within 60 days after the
date of completing each performance test required by this subpart,
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of
this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). The data shall be
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test shall be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI).
    (i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI
available to the public without further notice to the owner or
operator. Do not use CEDRI to submit information that the owner or
operator claims as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a
claim of CBI, if the owner or operator wishes to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section, the owner or operator shall submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
    (ii) The file shall be generated using the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website.
    (iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that the
owner or operator claims to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    (iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions
shall be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the

email address [email protected], and as described above, should include
clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if the owner or operator does not have a file sharing service,
please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
    (v) If the owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
    (vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (vii) The owner or operator shall submit the same file submitted to
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA through CEDRI via the
EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (e) Claims of EPA system outage. If the owner or operator is
required to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's
CDX, the owner or operator may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, the owner or operator shall meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage shall have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
    (5) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report shall be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (f) Claims of force majeure. If the owner or operator is required
to electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the
owner or operator may assert a claim of force majeure for failure to
timely comply with that reporting requirement. To assert a claim of
force majeure, the owner or operator shall meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
    (3) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting shall occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
8. Add subpart La consisting of Sec. Sec.  60.120a through 60.125a to
part 60 to read as follows:
Subpart La--Standards of Performance for Secondary Lead Smelters for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
December 1, 2022
Sec.
60.120a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.121a Definitions.
60.122a Standard for particulate matter.
60.123a Test methods and procedures.
60.124a Monitoring requirements.
60.125a Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Subpart La--Standards of Performance for Secondary Lead Smelters
for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced
After December 1, 2022

Sec.  60.120a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in secondary lead smelters: Process fugitive
emissions sources, blast (cupola) furnaces, and reverberatory furnaces.
    (b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 20, 2023,
is subject to the requirements of this subpart.

Sec.  60.121a  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
    Blast furnace means any furnace used to recover metal from slag.

    Lead means elemental lead or alloys in which the predominant
component is lead.
    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of particulate
matter (PM) emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is associated
with lead smelting or refining including, but not limited to, smelting
furnace charging points; smelting furnace lead and slag taps; pot and
refining furnaces; and casting kettles.
    Reverberatory furnace includes the following types of reverberatory
furnaces: stationary, rotating, rocking, and tilting.
    Secondary lead smelter means any facility producing lead from a
lead-bearing scrap material by smelting to the metallic form.

Sec.  60.122a  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from a blast (cupola) or reverberatory
furnace any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of 10 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, mg/dscm (0.0044 grains per dry standard cubic feet, gr/dscf).
    (2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 percent.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any process fugitive emissions
source any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of 4.9 mg/dscm (0.0021 grains per dry
standard cubic feet, gr/dscf).
    (2) Exhibit opacity greater than 5 percent.
    (c) The PM and opacity emissions standards specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section apply at all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

Sec.  60.123a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) Initial performance tests. The owner or operator shall conduct
performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM and
opacity emission standards specified in Sec.  60.122a.
    (b) Periodic performance tests. Following the initial compliance
demonstration required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or
operator shall conduct periodic performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the PM and opacity emissions standards specified in
Sec.  60.122a according to the schedule specified in paragraph (b)(1)
or (2) of this section.
    (1) Conduct performance tests no later than 12 months following the
previous compliance test.
    (2) Conduct performance tests up to 24 calendar months following
the previous compliance test if the previous compliance test measured
PM emissions equal to or less than the concentrations specified in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section and the owner or operator
has obtained approval from the Administrator for a written request to
extend the period of the periodic performance test. The extension
request will be deemed automatically approved if the owner or operator
submits the results of a PM performance test equal to or less than the
applicable concentrations specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section, the owner or operator submits the request for the
extension within 4 months after the subject compliance test, and the
Administrator does not provide a response to such request within 6
months of submission.
    (i) 5 mg/dscm for blast and reverberatory furnaces.
    (ii) 2.4 mg/dscm for process fugitive emissions sources.
    (c) Test methods. In conducting the performance tests required in
Sec.  60.8, the owner or operator shall use the following EPA reference
test methods and procedures in appendix A of this part or other methods
and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in
Sec.  60.8(b).
    (1) EPA Method 1 at appendix A-1 to this part for selecting
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
    (2) EPA Method 2 at appendix A-1 to this part at appendix A-1 to
this part or EPA Method 5D at appendix A-3 to this part, section 8.3
for positive fabric filters, to measure the volumetric flow rate of the
gas stream.
    (3) EPA Method 3, 3A, 3B, or 3C at appendix A-1 to this part to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas and the
concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the sample gas.
    (4) EPA Method 4 at appendix A-3 to this part to determine the
moisture content of the gas stream.
    (5) EPA Method 5 or 5D at appendix A-3 to this part for measuring
PM concentrations. The EPA Method 5 or 5D tests shall be conducted
during representative periods of furnace operation, including charging
and tapping, and the sampling time and sample volume for each test run
shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), respectively.
As an alternative to using EPA Method 5, owners or operators may
measure PM emissions by the following methods:
    (i) EPA Method 12 at appendix A-5 to this part (see section 16.1 of
Method 12) to measure inorganic lead concentrations and PM.
    (ii) EPA Method 29 at appendix A-8 to this part to measure metal
(lead) concentrations and PM (see section 1.2 of Method 29).
    (6) EPA Method 9 at appendix A-4 to this part and the procedures
specified in Sec.  60.11 for determining opacity. Owners or operators
may use the following methods as alternatives to EPA Method 9 as
applicable and appropriate:
    (i) EPA Method 22 (Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions) at
appendix A-7 to this part for determining no visible emissions.
    (ii) ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference at Sec.  60.17) is an
acceptable alternative with the specified conditions in paragraphs
(c)(6)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (A) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference at Sec.  60.17), the owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor shall present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (B) The owner or operator shall also have standard operating
procedures (SOPs) in place including daily or other frequency quality
checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications
as outlined in section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference
at Sec.  60.17).
    (C) The owner or operator shall follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
    (D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor shall have a minimum
of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to
determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each
set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one
reading and the average error shall not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (E) This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16

(incorporated by reference at Sec.  60.17) and this section is on the
owner or operator, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.

Sec.  60.124a  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner shall comply with the applicable monitoring
requirements specified in Sec.  60.13.
    (b) The owner shall prepare, and at all times operate according to,
an SOP manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection,
maintenance, and bag leak detection and corrective action plans for all
baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge filters) used to reduce PM and
opacity emissions from any affected source subject to the emissions
standards in Sec.  60.122a.
    (c) The owner shall submit the SOP manual for the baghouses (fabric
filters or cartridge collectors) described in paragraph (b) of this
section to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and
approval.
    (d) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for inspections and
routine maintenance shall, at a minimum, include the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section.
    (1) Daily monitoring of the pressure drop across each baghouse
cell.
    (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
    (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
    (7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
    (8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
    (9) Continuous operation of a bag leak detection system.
    (e) The procedures specified in the SOP manual for baghouse
maintenance shall include, at a minimum, a preventative maintenance
schedule that is consistent with the baghouse manufacturer's
instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (f) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (d)(9) of
this section, shall meet the specification and requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system shall be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 50.0 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) or less.
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor shall provide output of
relative PM loadings.
    (3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (4) The owner shall install and operate the bag leak detection
system in a manner consistent with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-
98-015, Office of Air quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  60.17) or the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations for installation, operation, and adjustment of the
system.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner shall not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm
delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP manual required
under paragraph (b) of this section. The owner cannot increase the
sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by
more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment
follows a complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the
baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the owner shall install the bag leak detector downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (g) The owner shall include in the SOP manual required by paragraph
(b) of this section a corrective action plan that specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system
alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a minimum, the
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm
as well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm shall
be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (2) The cause of the alarm shall be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
    (h) Baghouses equipped with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters as a secondary filter used to control emissions from any source
subject to the PM and opacity emission standards in Sec.  60.122a are
exempt from the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection
system. The owner or operator shall monitor and record the pressure
drop across each HEPA filter system daily. If the pressure drop is
outside the limit(s) specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or
operator shall take appropriate corrective measures, which may include
but not be limited to those given in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of
this section.
    (1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
    (2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
    (3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices.
    (4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (i) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP)
used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the PM and
opacity emission standards in Sec.  60.122a are exempt from the
requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system.
    (j) If a wet scrubber is used to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the PM emissions standards for blast and reverberatory furnaces
specified in Sec.  60.122a(a), the owner or

operator shall monitor and record the pressure drop and water flow rate
of the wet scrubber during the initial performance or annual compliance
test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit
under Sec.  60.122a(a). Thereafter, the owner or operator shall monitor
and record the pressure drop and water flow rate values at least once
every hour and maintain the pressure drop and water flow rate at levels
no lower than 30 percent below the pressure drop and water flow rate
measured during the initial performance or compliance test.
    (k) During the initial performance test required by Sec.
60.123a(a), or any periodic performance test required by Sec.
60.123a(b), the owner or operator shall establish the value or range of
values of the monitoring parameter(s) for each control device used to
comply with the PM and opacity emission standards specified in Sec.
60.122a.
    (l) If an affected source is subject to the monitoring requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead Smelting) and those
requirements are as stringent or more stringent than the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart X also demonstrates compliance
with the monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through
(k) of this section.

Sec.  60.125a  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator shall comply with the applicable
notification and recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  60.7 and
the reporting requirements specified in Sec.  60.19.
    (1) Records shall be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  60.7(f). However,
electronic recordkeeping and reporting may be used if suitable for the
specific case (e.g., by electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on
CD or hard copy), and when required by this subpart.
    (2) Records shall be kept on site for at least 2 years after the
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record, according to Sec.  60.7(f).
    (b) The SOP manual required in Sec.  60.124a(b) shall be submitted
to the Administrator in electronic format for review and approval of
the initial submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
    (c) The owner or operator shall maintain for a period of 2 years,
records of the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of
this section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required
under Sec.  60.124a(d) as part of the practices described in the SOP
manual for baghouses required under Sec.  60.124a(b).
    (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate
values for wet scrubbers used to control PM emissions from blast or
reverberatory furnaces as required in Sec.  60.124a(j).
    (5) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (6) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  60.11(d), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
    (7) Records of all alarms and corrective actions taken for the bag
leak detection system specified in Sec.  60.124a(d)(9).
    (8) Records maintained as part of the practices described in the
SOP manual for baghouses required under Sec.  60.124a(b), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed, and
the corrective actions taken.
    (9) Record of the periods when the pressure drop and water flow
rate of wet scrubbers used to control process fugitive sources dropped
below the levels established in Sec.  60.124a(j), and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
    (10) Records of the rationale for the control device monitoring
parameter value(s), established as specified in Sec.  60.124a(k),
monitoring frequency, and averaging time. Include all data and
calculations used to develop the value and a description of why the
value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable emission standard.
    (d) In addition to the reporting requirements specified in
Sec. Sec.  60.7 and 60.19, within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the initial and periodic performance tests
following the procedures as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3)
of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov). The data shall be
submitted in a file format generated using the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, the owner or operator may submit an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test shall be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). (i) The EPA will make
all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public
without further notice to the owner or operator. Do not use CEDRI to
submit information the owner or operator claims as CBI. Although we do
not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if the owner or operator
wishes to assert a CBI claim for some of the information submitted
under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI,
to the EPA.
    (ii) The file shall be generated using the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website.
    (iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that the
owner or operator claims to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    (iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic

submissions shall be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at
the email address [email protected], and as described above, should
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if the owner or operator does not have a file
sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
    (v) If the owner or operator cannot transmit the file
electronically, the owner or operator may send CBI information through
the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
    (vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (vii) The owner or operator shall submit the same file submitted to
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA through CEDRI via the
EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (e) If the owner or operator is required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the owner or operator may assert
a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, the
owner or operator shall meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall have been or will be precluded from
accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time
prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage shall have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (4) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
    (5) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which the owner or operator propose to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report shall be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (f) If the owner or operator is required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the owner or operator may assert
a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with that
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, the owner or
operator shall meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (5) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator may submit a claim if a force majeure
event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five
business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes
of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that prevents the owner or operator from complying
with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time
period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (e.g.,
hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the affected
facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) The owner or operator shall submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date the
owner or operator first knew, or through due diligence should have
known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
    (3) The owner or operator shall provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) A description of measures taken or to be taken to minimize
the delay in reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which the owner or operator proposes to report, or
if the owner or operator has already met the reporting requirement at
the time of the notification, the date the owner or operator reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting shall occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

[FR Doc. 2023-25275 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49431-49434]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0124; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-197-AD;
Amendment 39-17944; AD 2014-16-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an analysis
of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300
series airplanes. This AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight
critical systems.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 28, 2014 (79 FR 11358). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis
of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300
series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance
program. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical
systems.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0233, dated November 7, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300
series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The results of the Extended Service Goal (ESG) exercise for A300
series aeroplanes (75,000 flight hours (FH) or 48,000 flight cycles
(FC), whichever occurs first) identified certain operational tests
as Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), necessary to ensure the
safety objectives for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded
60,000 FH.
    These ALI are not fully new, since all nine tasks derive from
existing Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) tasks. Consequently,
the intervals of those nine tasks can no longer be escalated or
retained at an interval higher than that specified in this [EASA] AD
for each task.
    Failure to comply with these tasks within the established
maximum intervals could be detrimental to the safety of the affected
aeroplanes.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
implementation of nine specific operational ALI test for aeroplanes
which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.
    In addition, Airbus performed an analysis of the impacts of ESG
activities on A300 series aeroplanes and, based on the results, this
[EASA] AD publishes an operational life of 75,000 FH or 48,000 FC,
whichever occurs first, applicable to A300 system installations.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 2014), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.

    No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28,
2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed
wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that
Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH throughout this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 11358, February 28, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $595, or $85 per product.

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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    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; 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124; 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 AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-16-20 Airbus: Amendment 39-17944. Docket No. FAA-2014-0124;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-197-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 25, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-
203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any
category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05 Periodic
Inspections; Code 22, Auto Flight; Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended
service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The
compliance time for doing the initial actions specified in Table 1
to paragraph (g) of this AD is before 60,000 total flight hours
accumulated on the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

              Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD: Intervals for New Airworthiness Limitation Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Maintenance planning                                                                    Aircraft maintenance
     document task No.           Task description          Interval  (not to exceed)         manual reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
273311 0503 1.............  ARTIFICIAL FEEL-ELEVATOR--  2,500 flight hours.............  273300/501
                             Operational test of pitch
                             artificial feel by
                             comparing qualitatively
                             operating loads in high-
                             speed and low-speed
                             configurations (with each
                             individual hydraulic
                             system).
273313 0503 1.............  COMPUTER-ARTIFICIAL FEEL--  3,500 flight hours.............  272300/501
                             Operational test of                                         and
                             artificial feel ``pitch                                     273300/501
                             feel'' and ``rudder
                             travel'' monitoring
                             circuits (warning light
                             test and indicating
                             system test).
222100 0503 1.............  YAW DAMPER--Operational     80 flight hours................  222100/501
                             test to verify correct
                             operation of mechanical
                             control between yaw
                             damper system 2 and the
                             rudder.
222600 0503 1.............  YAW DAMPER--Operational     80 flight hours................  222600/501
                             test to verify correct
                             operation of mechanical
                             control between yaw
                             damper system 2 and the
                             rudder.
272411 0503 1.............  SERVO CONTROL-RUDDER--      250 flight hours...............  271400/501
                             Operational test of
                             rudder servo controls
                             (with individual
                             hydraulic system) by
                             moving right-hand (RH)
                             rudder pedal full forward
                             and visually observe that
                             rudder moves to the
                             right. Check that rudder
                             travel is confirmed on
                             the flight control
                             position indicator.
                             Release RH pedal. Repeat
                             above test by moving left-
                             hand rudder pedal.
275400 0503 1.............  FLAP ASYMMETRY--            500 flight hours...............  275400/501
                             Operational test of flap
                             asymmetry monitoring
                             circuit (include solenoid
                             operation).
275400 0503 2.............  FLAP PRESSURE-OFF BRAKE--   1,000 flight hours.............  275400/501
                             Operational test of
                             pressure-off brake.
278300 0503 1.............  SLAT ASYMMETRY--            500 flight hours...............  278300/501
                             Operational test of slat
                             asymmetry monitoring
                             circuit.
278300 0503 2.............  SLAT PRESSURE-OFF BRAKE--   1,000 flight hours.............  278300/501
                             Operational test of
                             pressure-off brake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Airplane Airworthiness Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, do not operate any airplane
beyond 75,000 total flight hours or 48,000 total flight cycles,
whichever occurs first.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must

be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0233,
dated November 7, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0124-0002.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 4, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19549 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 5 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 938-939]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Akron-Canton
Airport, North Canton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 7 acres of airport
land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the
lease of airport property located at Akron-Canton Airport, North
Canton, OH. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
The parcel is located in the Northeast quadrant of the airport,
immediately east of the Runway 19 approach surface. The parcel
identification number is #2815572. The property is currently designated
as aeronautical use for compatible land use in support of the airfield
approach area. The proposed non-aeronautical use is for recreational
vehicle storage and sales facility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Detroit Airports District Office, Evonne M. McBurrows, 11677 South
Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and Akron-Canton Airport, 5400 Lauby Road NW #9,
North Canton, Ohio. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Evonne M. McBurrows, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne
Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evonne M. McBurrows, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office,
11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174. Telephone Number:
(734) 229-2900/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The property is currently designated as aeronautical use for
compatible land use. This parcel of land (7 acres) was acquired with
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) federal funds under AIP Grant #6-39-
0001-08. Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority (AA) proposed non-
aeronautical use is for recreational vehicle storage and sales
facility. AA will lease the land and receive fair market value.
    The disposition of proceeds from the lease of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Akron-Canton Airport, North Canton,
OH from its obligations to be maintained for aeronautical purposes.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the change in use of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Description of a 7.006 Acre Lease Area

    Situated in the City of Green, County of Summit, State of Ohio and
being part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, of former Green
Township, and being part of a 130.389 acre tract as conveyed to Akron-
Canton Regional Airport Authority as recorded in Reception Number
55559106 of the Summit County Fiscal Office;
    Commencing at a 1 inch bar in a monument box found at the
intersection of the centerline of Mayfair Road (T.R. 244) with the
centerline of Greensburg Road (C.H. 133);
    Thence N 88[deg]27'43' W along the south line of said Northwest
Quarter of Section 25 and the centerline of said Greensburg Road, a
distance of 2602.75 feet to a point at the southwesterly corner of a
2.08 acre parcel conveyed to Overhead Door Corporation by Reception
Number 55669449 of the

Summit County Fiscal Office and a southeasterly corner of said Akron-
Canton Regional Airport Authority parcel;
    Thence N 01[deg]37'33'' E along the easterly line of said Akron-
Canton Regional Airport Authority parcel and the westerly line of said
Overhead Door Corporation parcel, a distance of 499.21 feet to a \5/8\
inch rebar found at the northwesterly corner of said Overhead Door
Corporation parcel (passing over a \5/8\ inch rebar found on the north
right of way line of said Greensburg Road at 61.25 feet), and being the
True Place Of Beginning for the parcel herein described;
    1. Thence N 01[deg]37'33'' E on a new lease line and along the
northerly extension of said westerly line of said Overhead Door
Corporation parcel, a distance of 489.57 feet to a point on the
easterly line of an area designated by said Akron-Canton Regional
Airport Authority as ``RUNWAY 19 APPROACH AND PROTECTION ZONE (19
RPZ)'';
    2. Thence N 10[deg]18'22'' E on a new lease line and along the
easterly line of said ``19 RPZ'', a distance of S 10.67 feet to a point
on the southwesterly existing limited-access right of way line of
Interstate 77 and the northeasterly line of said Akron-Canton Regional
Airport Authority parcel;
    3. Thence S 33[deg]57'37'' E along the northeasterly line of said
Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority parcel and said limited access
right of way line of Interstate 77, a distance of 554.65 feet to a \5/
8\ inch iron bar found at the northeast corner of said Akron-Canton
Regional Airport Authority parcel and the northwest corner of a 7.706
acre parcel conveyed to Canton Green, LLC by Reception Number 55538275
of the Summit County Fiscal Office.
    4. Thence S 01[deg]37'33'' W along the easterly line of said Akron-
Canton Regional Airport Authority parcel the westerly line of said
Canton Green, LLC parcel, a distance of 542.51 feet to a \3/4\ inch
iron pipe found at a southeast corner of said Akron-Canton Regional
Airport Authority parcel and the northeast corner of a 1.04 acre parcel
conveyed to Akron Canton Regional Airport Authority by Reception Number
54282080 of the Summit County Fiscal Office;
    5. Thence N 88[deg]29'31'' W along the northerly line of said 1.04
acre Akron-Canton Regional Airport Authority parcel and the northerly
line of said Overhead Door Corporation parcel, a distance of 399.84
feet (passing over a \3/4\ inch iron pipe found at 184.77 feet) to the
True Place of Beginning, and containing 7.006 acres more or less, of
which 0.000 acres are within the road right of way, subject to all
easements and right of ways of record or as otherwise established. This
description is based on a field survey performed under the direction of
Adam R. Zearley, P. S. #8594 of Hammontree & Associates, Limited,
Engineers, Planners, and Surveyors of North Canton, Ohio in June, 2016.
    The basis of bearings for this description the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System, Ohio North Zone, NAD83 (2011), Geoid 12A.

    Issued in Romulus, Michigan, on November 30, 2017.
John L. Mayfield, Jr.,
Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-00129 Filed 1-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30105-30108]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD19-3-000]

Petition of North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6--Cyber
Security--Incident Reporting and Response Planning

    In Reply Refer to: North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Docket No. RD19-3-000.
    North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 1325 G Street NW,
Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005.

Attention: Lauren Perotti, Marisa Hecht

Dear Ms. Perotti and Ms. Hecht:

    1. On March 7, 2019, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) filed a petition requesting approval of proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 (Cyber Security--Incident Reporting and
Response Planning). NERC also requested approval of: (1) The associated
implementation plan, violation risk factors and violation severity
levels; (2) the inclusion of proposed revised definitions of ``Cyber
Security Incident'' and ``Reportable Cyber Security Incident'' into the
NERC Glossary; \1\ and (3) the retirement of currently-effective
Reliability Standard CIP-008-5. For the reasons discussed below, we
grant the requested approvals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (NERC
Glossary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In Order No. 848, the Commission directed NERC to enhance the
mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents.\2\ The Commission
explained that the currently-effective reporting threshold, which only
requires reporting in cases where a Cyber Security Incident has
``compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks,'' may
understate the true scope of cyber-related threats to the Bulk-Power
System.\3\ To address this reliability gap, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission directed NERC
to develop and submit modifications to

the Reliability Standard to require the reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents that compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible
entity's Electronic Security Perimeter (ESP) or associated Electronic
Access Control or Monitoring Systems (EACMS).\4\ With respect to EACMS,
the Commission directed that enhanced reporting should apply, at a
minimum, to EACMS that perform the following functions: (1)
Authentication; (2) monitoring and logging; (3) access control; (4)
Interactive Remote Access; and (5) alerting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards,
Order No. 848, 164 FERC ] 61,033 (2018).
    \3\ Id. PP 2-3.
    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission also directed that information in Cyber Security
Incident reports should include certain minimum information to improve
the quality of reporting and allow for ease of comparison by ensuring
that each report includes specified fields of information.\5\ The
Commission further directed that filing deadlines for Cyber Security
Incident reports should be established and that Cyber Security Incident
reports should be sent to the Electricity Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (E-ISAC) and the Department of Homeland Security
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) or
any successor organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission identified the following minimum fields of
information to be reported: ``(1) the functional impact, where
possible, that the Cyber Security Incident achieved or attempted to
achieve; (2) the attack vector that was used to achieve or attempted
to achieve the Cyber Security Incident; and (3) the level of
intrusion that was achieved or attempted or as a result of the Cyber
Security Incident.'' Order No. 848, 164 FERC ] 61,033 at P 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In its petition, NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-008-6 broadens the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security Incidents
and thus addresses the concern that currently-effective Reliability
Standard CIP-008-5 may not encompass the full scope of cyber-related
threats to the Bulk-Power System.\6\ As a predicate to the augmented
reporting requirements in proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, NERC
proposes revised NERC Glossary definitions of Cyber Security Incident
and Reportable Cyber Security Incident. NERC explains that, by applying
the revised definitions, Cyber Security Incidents (i.e., attempts to
compromise) and Reportable Cyber Security Incidents (i.e., actual
compromises) will be reported under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-
008-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NERC Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. As proposed by NERC, the revised Cyber Security Incident
definition includes events involving ``compromises or attempts to
compromise'' ESPs, EACMS, and Physical Security Perimeters (PSPs)
associated with high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems and
``disrupt[ion] or attempts to disrupt the operation of a BES Cyber
System.'' \7\ NERC contends that the proposed definition of Cyber
Security Incident addresses the directives in Order No. 848 because, as
discussed below, once a responsible entity determines that an event is
a Cyber Security Incident, it must comply with the requirements of
proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, including initiating its
response plan and reporting the incident to the E-ISAC and, if subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, the National Cybersecurity
and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which is the successor
to ICS-CERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NERC indicates that the standard drafting team included all
EACMS within the proposed Cyber Security Incident and Reportable
Cyber Security incident definitions because nearly all EACMS
associated with high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems perform one
of the functions identified in Order No. 848. Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. NERC's proposed revisions to the Reportable Cyber Security
Incident definition broaden the scope of reportable events to include
compromises or disruptions of BES Cyber Systems that perform one or
more reliability tasks as well as compromises or disruptions to EACMS
and ESPs associated with high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems. NERC
explains that responsible entities will be required to report on a
compromise of a BES Cyber System even if it has not affected
performance of that BES Cyber System's tasks.\8\ For example, NERC
states that the revised definition would require responsible entities
to report on malware installed on a BES Cyber Asset component of a BES
Cyber System that performs one or more reliability tasks regardless of
whether the BES Cyber System still operates. NERC indicates that while
the revised Reportable Cyber Security Incident definition does not
encompass attempts to compromise, under proposed Reliability Standard
CIP-008-6, attempts to compromise are reported using the Cyber Security
Incident definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6,
Requirement R1, Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 address the Order No. 848
directive to broaden reporting on Cyber Security Incidents to include
those that ``attempt to compromise'' an ESP or EACMS.\9\ In proposed
Requirement R1, Part 1.2.1, each responsible entity must develop a
process that includes criteria to evaluate and define attempts to
compromise applicable systems. Proposed Requirement R1, Part 1.2.2
requires that each responsible entity develop a process that identifies
whether a Cyber Security Incident is an ``attempt to compromise''
pursuant to the criteria required by Part 1.2.1. NERC explains that
Parts 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 work together to help ensure each responsible
entity first develops criteria for identifying an attempt to compromise
and then applies the criteria during its Cyber Security Incident
identification process.\10\ NERC maintains that proposed Parts 1.2.1
and 1.2.2 acknowledge the differences in system architecture among
responsible entities and provide each responsible entity with the
flexibility to develop criteria that reflect what it considers
``suspicious.'' NERC contends that the benefit of such an approach,
compared to a one-size-fits-all approach, is that it enables
responsible entities to better capture real attempts to compromise.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 18.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Similar to the proposed revisions in Requirement R1, NERC states
that the proposed revisions to Reliability Standard CIP-008-6,
Requirement R2 address the Commission's directive in Order No. 848
regarding attempts to compromise.\12\ The proposed revisions to Part
2.2 do so by requiring that responsible entities use their Cyber
Security Incident response plans when responding to a Cyber Security
Incident determined to be an attempt to compromise applicable systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 20.
    \13\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NERC contends that proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6,
Requirement R4 addresses the Commission's directive to require that
responsible entities must send each report and update to the E-ISAC and
ICS-CERT.\13\ Under proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6,
Requirement R4, Part 4.1, responsible entities are required to submit
incident reports for both Reportable Cyber Security Incidents and Cyber
Security Incidents. In addition, proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-
6 specifies that the report must contain: (1) The functional impact;
(2) the attack vector used; and (3) the achieved or attempted level of
intrusion. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, Requirement R4,
Parts 4.2 and 4.3 include timelines for initial reports as well as
follow up reports to the E-ISAC and NCCIC. NERC states that initial
reports for Reportable Cyber Security Incidents must occur within one
hour of

its determination. By contrast, NERC indicates that once a responsible
entity has determined that a Cyber Security Incident meets its criteria
for an attempt to compromise an applicable system, it must report the
Cyber Security Incident by the end of the next calendar day. NERC
justifies the difference by explaining that the ``proposed notification
timelines appropriately reflect the severity of the risk of the
respective incidents.'' \14\ Finally, if a responsible entity does not
include one or more of the attributes in its initial report because it
was unknown at the time of the initial reporting, it must report the
attributes within seven days of determining the attribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Notice of NERC's March 7, 2019 filing was published in the
Federal Register, 84 FR 10,061 (2019), with interventions and protests
due on or before April 11, 2019. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2018),
the timely, unopposed motions to intervene serve to make the entities
that filed them parties to this proceeding.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On April 11, 2019, Public Citizen submitted comments
requesting that the Commission direct NERC to require the mandatory
public disclosure of entity names in Notices of Penalty for
violations of Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards. Public Citizen's comments do not address proposed
Reliability Standard CIP-006-8 or any other proposal contained in
NERC's petition, and they are therefore outside the scope of this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, we approve
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, its associated implementation plan,
violation risk factors and violation severity levels, and the revised
definitions of Cyber Security Incident and Reportable Cyber Security
Incident.\16\ We determine that the proposed Reliability Standard and
revised definitions satisfy the directive in Order No. 848 to broaden
mandatory reporting to include Cyber Security Incidents that
compromise, or attempt to compromise, a responsible entity's ESP or
associated EACMS, as well as modifications to specify the required
information in Cyber Security Incident reports, their dissemination,
and deadlines for filing reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Information Collection Statement

    11. In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission is soliciting
public comment on revisions to the information collection FERC-725B
(Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection
(CIP) Reliability Standards), which will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection
requirements. Comments on the collection of information are due within
60 days of the date this order is published in the Federal Register.
Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this order will not
be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number.
    12. Proposed Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 requires Responsible
Entities \17\ to broaden the mandatory reporting of Cyber Security
Incidents to include compromises or attempts to compromise BES Cyber
Systems or their associated ESPs or EACMS. The revised Reliability
Standard will not significantly increase the reporting burden on
entities because it builds off the currently-effective reporting
threshold by expanding it to address reliability gaps, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Responsible Entities'' refers to Balancing Authority
(BA), Distribution Provider (DP), Generator Operator (GOP),
Generator Owner (GO), Reliability Coordinator (RC), Transmission
Operator (TOP), and Transmission Owner (TO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Burden \18\ Estimate: The Commission estimates the changes in
the annual public reporting burden and cost as indicated below.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \19\ For the Reliability Standard being retired in Docket No.
RD19-3-000, the baseline numbers for respondents, burden, and cost
are the same figures as those in Order No. 848. The requirements and
burdens (from the Reliability Standard being retired) are continuing
in Reliability Standard CIP-008-6, plus the additional requirements
and burdens as indicated in the table.
    \20\ There are 1,414 unique registered entities in the NERC
compliance registry as of May 24, 2019. Of this total, we estimate
that 288 entities will face an increased paperwork burden.
    \21\ The loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) is based
on the average of the occupational categories for 2017 found on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics website: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oessrci.htm.
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000): $143.68
    Information Security Analysts (Occupation Code 15-1122): $61.55
    Computer and Information Systems Managers (Occupation Code: 11-
3021): $96.51
    Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000): $94.28
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $66.90
    Management Analyst (Code: 43-0000): $63.32
    These various occupational categories are weighted as follows:
[($94.28)(.10) + ($61.55)(.315) + ($66.90)(.02) + ($143.68)(.15) +
($96.51)(.10) + ($63.32)(.315)] = $81.30. The figure is rounded to
$81.00 for use in calculating wage figures in this order.
    \22\ One-time burdens apply in Year 1 only.
    \23\ Ongoing burdens apply in Year 2 and beyond.

                                                           RD19-3-000--Commission Letter Order
                             [Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Number of
                                  respondents &   Annual number   Total number    Average burden & cost     Total annual burden hours &      Cost per
                                 type of entity   of responses    of responses      per response \21\            total annual cost        respondent ($)
                                      \20\       per respondent
                                            (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)....................  (3) * (4) = (5)...............       (5) / (1)
                                                                            (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update internal procedures to               288               1             288  50 hrs.; $4,050........  14,400 hrs.; $1,166,400.......          $4,050
 comply with augmented
 reporting requirements (one-
 time) \22\ (CIP-008-6 R1-R4).
Annual cyber security incident              288               1             288  10 hrs.; $810..........  2880 hrs.; $233,280...........             810
 plan review (ongoing) \23\
 (CIP-008-6 R2.1).
Update cyber security incident              288               1             288  10 hrs.; $810..........  2880 hrs.; $233,280...........             810
 plan per review findings
 (ongoing) CIP-008-6 R3).
Incident reporting burden                   288              12           3,456  12 hrs.; $972..........  3456 hrs.; $279,936...........             972
 (ongoing) (CIP-008-6 R4).
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (one-time)...........  ..............  ..............             288  .......................  14,400 hrs.; $1,166,400.......  ..............
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total (ongoing)............  ..............  ..............           4,032  .......................  9,216 hrs.; $746,496..........  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-725B, Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards.
    Action: Proposed revision to FERC-725B information collection.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0248.
    Respondents: Responsible Entities.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    14. Necessity of the Information: This order approves the requested
modifications to Reliability Standards pertaining to critical
infrastructure protection. As discussed above, the Commission approves
Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA
because it improves upon the currently-effective suite of CIP
Reliability Standards.
    15. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    16. Comments (identified by Docket No. RD19-3-000) concerning the
collection of information and the associated burden estimate(s) may
also be sent by either of the following methods: eFiling at
Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp or
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Please refer to FERC-725B, OMB Control No. 1902-0248 in your
submission.
    17. All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free),
or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Dated: June 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13587 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P