outreach or directly contact the affected community.
    In sections VI and VII of this preamble the EPA addresses
environmental justice considerations, implications, and stakeholder
outreach the agency is taking to help ensure vulnerable communities are
not disproportionately impacted by this rule. The considerations,
analyses, and outreach presented in these preamble sections could help
States in designing, planning, and developing their own outreach and
engagement plans associated with the development and implementation of
their State plans to reduce emissions of GHGs from designated
facilities within the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.
    To ensure that robust and meaningful public engagement process
occurs as the States develop their CAA 111(d) plans, the EPA is also
proposing to include a requirement within EG OOOOc for States to
demonstrate in their plan submittal how they provided meaningful and
timely engagement with all pertinent stakeholders, including, as
necessary, industries and small businesses, as well as low-income
communities, communities of color, and indigenous populations living
near the designated facilities and who may be otherwise potentially
affected by the State's plan. The State would be required to describe,
in their plan submittal, the engagement they had with their
stakeholders, including their overburdened and underserved communities.
Additionally, the EPA would evaluate the States' demonstrations
regarding meaningful public engagement as part of its completeness
evaluation of a State plan submittal. If a State plan submission does
not meet the required elements for public participation, including
requirements for meaningful engagement, this may be ground for the EPA
to find the submission incomplete or to disapprove the plan.
    The EPA further notes that the implementing regulations allow a
State to request the approval of different State procedures for public
participation pursuant 40 CFR 60.23a(h). The EPA proposes to require
that such alternate State procedures do not supersede the meaningful
engagement requirements being proposed within EG OOOOc, so that a State
would still be required to comply with the meaningful

participation requirements even if they apply for a different procedure
than the other public notice and hearing requirements under 40 CFR
60.23a. As provided in 40 CFR 60.23a(h), the EPA is proposing that
States may also apply for, and the EPA may approve, alternate
meaningful engagement procedures if, in the judgement of the
Administrator, the procedures, although different from the requirements
of within EG OOOOc, in fact provide for adequate notice to and
meaningful participation of the public.

D. Components of State Plan Submission

    Under CAA section 111(d)(2), the EPA has an obligation to determine
whether each State plan is ``satisfactory.'' Therefore, in addition to
identifying the components that the EG must include, the EPA's
implementing regulations for CAA section 111(d) identify additional
components that a State plan must include. Many of these requirements
are found in 40 CFR 60.23a, 60.24a, 60.25a, and 60.26a. These
provisions include requirements for components such as the following:
Procedures a State must go through for adopting a plan before
submitting it to the EPA; the stringency of standards of performance
and compliance timelines; emission inventories, reporting, and
recordkeeping; and, the legal authority a State must show in adopting a
plan. These requirements are also generally contained in a list of
required State plan elements, referred to as the State plan
completeness criteria, found at 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(2)-(3). If the EPA
determines that a submitted plan does not meet these criteria then the
State is treated as not submitting a plan and the EPA has a duty to
promulgate a Federal plan for that State. See CAA section 111(d)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(1). If the EPA determines a plan submission is
complete, such determination does not reflect a judgment on the
eventual approvability of the submitted portions of the plan, which
instead must be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The
completeness criteria do not apply to States without any designated
facilities because these States are directed to submit to the
Administrator a letter of negative declaration certifying that there
are no designated facilities, as defined by the EPA's emissions
guidelines, located within the State. See 40 CFR 60.23a(b). No plan is
required for States that do not have any designated facilities.
Designated facilities located in States that mistakenly submit a letter
of negative declaration would be subject to a Federal plan until a
State plan regulating those facilities becomes approved by the EPA.
    The EPA established nine administrative and six technical criteria
for complete State plans under CAA section 111(d). See 40 CFR
60.27a(g)(2)-(3). If a State plan does not include even one of these
criteria, then the State plan may be deemed incomplete by the EPA.
States that are familiar with the SIP submittal process under CAA
section 110 will be familiar with the completeness criteria found in 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. While the completeness criteria for State plan
submittals found at 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(2)-(3) is somewhat similar to the
SIP submittal criteria in appendix V, it is not exactly the same. As
such, even States that are familiar with the SIP submittal process
under CAA section 110 are strongly encouraged to review the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(2)-(3) as well as the other
State plan requirements found in 40 CFR 60.23a, 60.24a, 60.25a, and
60.26a early in their planning process.
    In short, the administrative completeness criteria require that the
State's plan include a formal submittal letter and a copy of the actual
State regulations themselves, as well as evidence that the State has
legal authority to adopt and implement the plan, actually adopted the
plan, followed State procedural laws when adopting the plan, gave
public notice of the changes to State law, held public hearing(s) if
applicable, and responded to State-level comments. For a detailed
description regarding the public hearing requirement, see 40 CFR
60.23a. For a detailed description of what the State plan must include
in terms of evidence that the State has legal authority to adopt and
implement the plan, see 40 CFR 60.26a. States are strongly encouraged
to review the State plan requirements included in 40 CFR 60.23a and
60.26a in conjunction with the administrative completeness criteria in
40 CFR 60.27a.
    The technical criteria require that the State's plan identify the
designated facilities, the standards of performance, the geographic
scope of the plan, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
(both for facilities to ensure compliance and for the State to ensure
performance of the plan as a whole), and compliance schedules. The
technical criteria further require that the State demonstrate that the
plan is projected to achieve emission performance under the EG and that
each emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent,
verifiable, and enforceable. As previously described, it may not be
feasible to quantify certain non-numerical standards of performance.
The EPA is proposing to require States demonstrate that each standard
of performance is quantifiable, as feasible. For a detailed description
of the State plan requirements regarding standards of performance, see
section XIV.C and 40 CFR 60.24a.
    In addition to these technical criteria, 40 CFR 60.25a(a) requires
that State plans include certain emissions data for the designated
facilities. As explained previously, the EPA is soliciting comment on
superseding that requirement for this EG. Further, Sec.  60.25a
provides a detailed description of what the State plan is required to
include in terms of certain compliance monitoring and reporting. States
are strongly encouraged to review the State plan requirements included
in 40 CFR 60.24a and 60.25a in conjunction with the technical
completeness criteria in 40 CFR 60.27a.

E. Timing of State Plan Submissions and Compliance Times

    The EPA acknowledges that the D.C. Circuit has vacated certain
timing provisions within 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba. Am. Lung Assoc. v.
EPA, 985 F.3d at 991 (DC Cir. 2021). These provisions include timing
requirements for when State plans are due upon publication of a final
EG, for EPA's action on a State plan submission, and for EPA's
promulgation of a Federal plan. The Agency plans to undertake
rulemaking to address the provisions vacated under the court's decision
in the near future. At this time, the EPA is soliciting comment on any
facts and circumstances that are unique to the oil and natural gas
industry that the EPA should consider when proposing a timeline for
plan submission applicable to a final EG for this source category. We
recognize that the public needs to have an opportunity to review and
comment on the new timelines that will address these regulatory gaps,
including in particular the timeline for State plan submission, and the
Agency is committed to publishing this proposed timeline for comment
when available.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 60.22a(b)(5), the EPA's EG is to provide
information for the development of State plans that includes, among
other things, ``the time within which compliance with standards of
performance can be achieved.'' The EPA is proposing those compliance
times for comment. See 40 CFR 60.25a(c). Each State plan must include
compliance schedules that, subject to certain exception, require
compliance as expeditiously as practicable but no later

than the compliance times included in the relevant EG. Id. at 60.24a(a)
and (c). States are free to include compliance times in their plans
that are earlier than those included in the final EG. Id. at 40 CFR
60.24a(f)(2). If a State chooses to include a compliance schedule in
their plan that extends for a certain period beyond the date required
for submittal of the plan, then ``the plan must include legally
enforceable increments of progress to achieve compliance for each
designated facility.'' \341\ Id. at 40 CFR 60.24a(d). To the extent a
State accounts for remaining useful life and other factors in applying
a less stringent standard of performance (than required by the EPA in
the final EG), the State must also include a compliance deadline that
it can demonstrate appropriately correlates with that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ As previously noted, the timing aspect of this provision
was vacated by the D.C. Circuit. Am. Lung Assoc. v. EPA, 985 F.3d
914 at 991. The EPA intends to address the timing aspect of this
provision in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to require that State plans impose a
compliance timeline on designated facilities to require final
compliance with the standards of performance as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than two years following the State plan
submittal deadline. As explained above, the EPA anticipates proposing a
State plan submission deadline in a separate document. The EPA believes
that two years is an appropriate amount of time for designated
facilities to ensure compliance based on the EPA's general
understanding of the industry and the proposed presumptive standards.
However, the EPA recognizes that there are many existing sources in the
oil and natural gas industry that would be subject to a State plan if
the presumptive standards are finalized in a similar manner as proposed
in this document, and that there may be a wide range of configurations
that may be present at any given facility. Further, the EPA recognizes
that it may be appropriate to require different compliance times for
different designated facilities. For example, it may be appropriate to
require one compliance schedule for reciprocating compressors and a
different compliance schedule for storage vessels. There may not be a
one-size-fits-all approach to compliance times that is appropriate for
all designated facilities.
    Accordingly, the EPA is soliciting comment on whether a two-year
compliance schedule is appropriate for all designated facilities, or
whether the EG should require a shorter or longer compliance schedule.
The EPA is further soliciting comment on whether it would be
appropriate to establish different compliance schedules for different
designated facilities, and if so, what are the appropriate timelines
for each designated facility. The EPA is soliciting comment on this
matter to collect information that might inform different compliance
timeline(s) that Agency may propose for comment in the future via a
supplemental proposal.

F. EPA Action on State Plans and Promulgation of Federal Plans

    While CAA section 111(d)(1) authorizes States to develop State
plans that establish standards of performance and provides States with
certain discretion in determining the appropriate standards, CAA
section 111(d)(2) provides the EPA a specific oversight role with
respect to such State plans. This latter provision authorizes the EPA
to prescribe a Federal plan for a State ``in cases where the State
fails to submit a satisfactory plan.'' The States must therefore submit
their plans to the EPA, and the EPA must evaluate each State plan to
determine whether each plan is ``satisfactory.'' The EPA's implementing
regulations for CAA section 111(d) accordingly provide procedural
requirements for the EPA to make such a determination. See 40 CFR
60.27a.
    Upon receipt of a State plan, the EPA is first required to
determine whether the State plan submittal is complete in accordance
with the completeness criteria explained above. See 40 CFR
60.27a(g)(1). The EPA would then have a set period of time to act on
any State plan that is deemed complete.\342\ If the EPA determines that
the State plan submission is incomplete, then the State will be treated
as not having made the submission, and the EPA would be required to
promulgate a Federal plan for the designated facilities in that State.
Likewise, if a State does not make any submission then the EPA is
required to promulgate a Federal plan. If the EPA does not make an
affirmative determination regarding completeness of the State plan
submission within a certain amount of time from receiving the State
plan, then the submission is deemed complete by operation of law. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ As explained above, the D.C. Circuit vacated the timing
provisions regarding EPA's action on a state plan submission, and
EPA's promulgation of a Federal plan. Am. Lung Assoc. v. EPA, 985
F.3d at 991. The Agency plans to undertake rulemaking to address the
provisions vacated under the court's decision in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a State has submitted a complete plan, then the EPA is required
to evaluate that plan submission for approvability in accordance with
the CAA, EPA's implementing regulations, and the applicable EG. The EPA
may approve or disapprove the State plan submission in whole or in
part. See 40 CFR 60.27a(b). If the EPA approves the State plan
submission, then that State plan becomes Federally enforceable. If the
EPA disapproves the required State plan submission, in whole or in
part, then the EPA is required to promulgate a Federal plan for the
designated facilities in that State via a notice-and-comment
rulemaking, and with an opportunity for public hearing. See 40 CFR
60.27a(c) and (f). In either scenario that would give rise to the EPA's
duty to promulgate a Federal plan (a finding that a State did not
submit a complete plan or a disapproval of a State plan), the EPA would
not be required to promulgate the Federal plan if the State corrects
the deficiency giving rise to the EPA's duty and the EPA approves the
State's plan before promulgating the Federal plan. Requirements
regarding the content of a Federal plan are included in 40 CFR
60.27a(e).

G. Tribes and the Planning Process Under CAA Section 111(d)

    Under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) adopted by the EPA, Tribes
may seek authority to implement a plan under CAA section 111(d) in a
manner similar to a State. See 40 CFR part 49, subpart A. Tribes may,
but are not required to, seek approval for treatment in a manner
similar to a State for purposes of developing a Tribal Implementation
Plan (TIP) implementing the EG. If a Tribe obtains approval and submits
a TIP, the EPA will generally use similar criteria and follow similar
procedures as those described above for State plans when evaluating the
TIP submission, and will approve the TIP if appropriate. The EPA is
committed to working with eligible Tribes to help them seek
authorization and develop plans if they choose. Tribes that choose to
develop plans will generally have the same flexibilities available to
States in this process. If a Tribe does not seek and obtain the
authority from the EPA to establish a TIP, the EPA has the authority to
establish a Federal CAA section 111(d) plan for areas of Indian country
where designated facilities are located. A Federal plan would apply to
all designated facilities located in the areas of Indian country
covered by the Federal plan unless and until the EPA approves an
applicable TIP applicable to those facilities.

XV. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting

    In this section, the EPA is addressing how regulation of GHGs under
CAA section 111 could have implications for other EPA rules and for
permits written under the CAA PSD preconstruction permit program and
the CAA title V operating permit program. The EPA is proposing to
include provisions in the regulations that explicitly address some of
these potential implications, consistent with our experience in prior
rules regulating GHGs. The EPA included and explained the basis for
similar provisions when promulgating 2016 NSPS OOOOa, as well as the
2015 subpart TTTT NSPS for electric utility generating units. See 81 FR
35823, 35871 (June 3, 2016); 80 FR 64509, 64628 (October 23, 2015). The
discussion in these prior rule preambles equally applies to the oil and
gas sources subject to NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc.
    In summary, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573
U.S. 302 (2014) (UARG), the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant
for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or
modification thereof) for the purpose of PSD applicability. Certain
portions of the EPA's PSD regulations (specifically, the definition of
``subject to regulation'') effectively ensure that most sources will
not trigger PSD solely by virtue of their GHG emissions. E.g., 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(iv), 52.21(b)(49)(iv).\343\ However, the EPA's PSD
regulations (specifically, the definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant'') provide additional bases for PSD applicability for
pollutants that are regulated under CAA section 111. To address this
latter component of PSD applicability, the EPA is proposing to add
provisions within the subpart OOOOb NSPS and subpart OOOOc EG to help
clarify that the promulgation of GHG standards under section 111 will
not result in additional sources becoming subject to PSD based solely
on GHG emissions, which would be contrary to the holding in UARG. These
provisions will be similar to those in the 2016 NSPS OOOOa and other
section 111 rules that regulate GHGs. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.5360a(b)(1)-
(2), 60.5515(b)(1)-(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \343\ In 2016, the EPA proposed additional revisions to the PSD
and title V regulations that would address these and other concerns.
81 FR 58110 (October 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA understands there are also concerns that if methane were to
be subject to regulation as a separate air pollutant from GHGs, sources
that emit methane above the PSD thresholds or modifications that
increase methane emissions could be subject to the PSD program. To
address this concern and for purposes of clarity, the EPA is proposing
to adopt regulatory text within subpart OOOOb NSPS and subpart OOOOc EG
to clarify that the air pollutant that is subject to regulation is
GHGs, even though the standard is expressed in the form of a limitation
on emission of methane. This language will be substantially similar to
language found in, for example, the 2016 NSPS OOOOa and other rules.
See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.5360a(a), 60.5515(a).
    For sources that are subject to the PSD program based on non-GHG
emissions, the CAA continues to require that PSD permits satisfy the
best available control technology (BACT) requirement for GHGs. Based on
the language in the PSD regulations, the EPA and States may continue to
limit the application of BACT to GHG emissions in those circumstances
where a new source emits GHGs in the amount of at least 75,000 tpy on a
CO2 Eq. basis or an existing major source increases
emissions of GHGs by more than 75,000 tpy on a CO2 Eq.
basis. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iv), 52.21(b)(49)(iv). The proposed
revisions to the regulatory text within subparts OOOOb NSPS and OOOOc
EG will ensure that this BACT applicability level remains operable to
sources of GHGs regulated under CAA section 111, as have similar
revisions in prior rules. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.5360a(b)(1)-(2),
60.5515(b)(1)-(2). This proposed rule will not require any additional
revisions to SIPs.
    Regarding title V, the UARG decision similarly held that the EPA
may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining
whether a source is a major source for the purpose of title V
applicability. Promulgation of CAA section 111 requirements for GHGs
will not result in the EPA imposing a requirement that stationary
sources obtain a title V permit solely because such sources emit or
have the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source
thresholds.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ Additional regulatory text, based on that in prior rules,
will further ensure that title V regulations are not applied to GHGs
solely because they are regulated under CAA section 111. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 60.5360a(b)(3)-(4), 60.5515(b)(3)-(4). The EPA understands
that concerns regarding the regulation of methane as a separate air
pollutant (described with respect to PSD) also apply to title V. The
EPA's proposed regulatory text--clarifying that the pollutant
subject to regulation is GHGs--will similarly address these concerns
with respect to title V. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.5360a(a), 60.5515(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be clear, however, unless exempted by the Administrator through
regulation under CAA section 502(a), any source, including a ``non-
major source,'' subject to a standard or regulation under section 111
is required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit
that ensures compliance with all applicable CAA requirements for the
source, including any GHG-related applicable requirements. This aspect
of the title V program is not affected by UARG.\345\ The EPA proposes
to include an exemption from the obligation to obtain a title V permit
for sources subject to NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, unless such sources
would otherwise be required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or
40 CFR 71.3(a), as the EPA did in NSPS OOOO and OOOOa.\346\ See 40 CFR
60.5370, 60.5370a. However, sources that are subject to the CAA section
111 standards promulgated in this rule and that are otherwise required
to obtain a title V permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a) will
be required to apply for, and operate pursuant to, a title V permit
that ensures compliance with all applicable CAA requirements, including
any GHG-related applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ See Memorandum from Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, and Cynthia Giles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, Next Steps and
Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court's Decision
in Utility Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (July
24, 2014) at 5.
    \346\ The EPA provided the rationale for exempting this source
category from the title V permitting requirements during the
rulemaking for the 2012 NSPS OOOO. See 76 FR 52737, 52751 (August
23, 2011). That rationale continues to apply to this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XVI. Impacts of This Proposed Rule

A. What are the air impacts?

    The EPA projected that, from 2023 to 2035, relative to the
baseline, the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc will reduce about 41
million short tons of methane emissions reductions (920 million tons
CO2 Eq.), 12 million short tons of VOC emissions reductions,
and 480 thousand short tons of HAP emission reductions from facilities
that are potentially affected by this proposal. The EPA projected
regulatory impacts beginning in 2023 as that year represents the first
full year of implementation of the proposed NSPS OOOOb. The EPA assumes
that emissions impacts of the proposed EG OOOOc will begin in 2026. The
EPA projected impacts through 2035 to illustrate the accumulating
effects of this rule over a longer period. The EPA

did not estimate impacts after 2035 for reasons including limited
information, as explained in the RIA.

B. What are the energy impacts?

    The energy impacts described in this section are those energy
requirements associated with the operation of emission control devices.
Potential impacts on the national energy economy from the rule are
discussed in the economic impacts section in XVI.D. There will likely
be minimal change in emissions control energy requirements resulting
from this rule. Additionally, this proposed action continues to
encourage the use of emission controls that recover hydrocarbon
products that can be used on-site as fuel or reprocessed within the
production process for sale.

C. What are the compliance costs?

    The PV of the regulatory compliance cost associated with the
proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc over the 2023 to 2035 period was
estimated to be $13 billion (in 2019 dollars) using a 3-percent
discount rate and $10 billion using a 7-percent discount rate. The EAV
of these cost reductions is estimated to be $1.2 billion per year using
a 3-percent discount rate and $1.2 billion per year using a 7-percent
discount rate.
    These estimates do not, however, include the producer revenues
associated with the projected increase in the recovery of saleable
natural gas. Estimates of the value of the recovered product have been
included in previous regulatory analyses as offsetting compliance
costs. Using the 2021 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projection of natural
gas prices to estimate the value of the change in the recovered gas at
the wellhead projected to result from the proposed action, the EPA
estimated a PV of regulatory compliance costs of the proposed rule over
the 2023 to 2035 period of $7.2 billion using a 3-percent discount rate
and $6.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate. The corresponding
estimates of the EAV of compliance costs after accounting for the
recovery of saleable natural gas were $680 million per year using a 3-
percent discount rate and $760 million using a 7-percent discount rate.

D. What are the economic and employment impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact and distributional analysis
for this proposal, as detailed in section 4 of the RIA for this
proposal. To provide a partial measure of the economic consequences of
the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, the EPA developed a pair of
single-market, static partial-equilibrium analyses of national crude
oil and natural gas markets. We implemented the pair of single-market
analyses instead of a coupled market or general equilibrium approach to
provide broad insights into potential national-level market impacts
while providing maximum analytical transparency. We estimated the price
and quantity impacts of the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc on crude
oil and natural gas markets for a subset of years within the time
horizon analyzed in the RIA. The models are parameterized using
production and price data from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration and supply and demand elasticity estimates from the
economics literature.
    The RIA projects that regulatory costs are at their highest in
2026, the first year the requirements of both the proposed NSPS OOOOb
and EG OOOOc are assumed to be in effect and will represent the year
with the largest market impacts based upon the partial equilibrium
modeling. We estimated that the proposed rule could result in a maximum
decrease in annual natural gas production of about 249 million Mcf in
2026 (or about 0.8 percent of natural gas production) with a maximum
price increase of $0.05 per Mcf (or about 1.8 percent). We estimated
the maximum annual reduction in crude oil production would be about
12.2 million barrels (or about 0.3 percent of crude oil production)
with a maximum price increase of about $0.06 per barrel (or less than
0.1 percent).
    Before 2026, the modeled market impacts are much smaller than the
2026 impacts as only the incremental requirements under the proposed
NSPS OOOOb are assumed to be in effect. As regulatory costs are
projected to decline after 2026, the modelled market impacts for years
after 2026 are smaller than the peaks estimated for 2026. Please see
section 4.1 of the RIA for more detail on the formulation and
implementation of the model as well as a discussion of several
important caveats and limitations associated with the approach.
    As discussed in the RIA for this proposal, employment impacts of
environmental regulations are generally composed of a mix of potential
declines and gains in different areas of the economy over time.
Regulatory employment impacts can vary across occupations, regions, and
industries; by labor and product demand and supply elasticities; and in
response to other labor market conditions. Isolating such impacts is a
challenge, as they are difficult to disentangle from employment impacts
caused by a wide variety of ongoing, concurrent economic changes.
    The oil and natural gas industry directly employs approximately
140,000 people in oil and natural gas extraction, a figure which varies
with market prices and technological change, and employs a large number
of workers in related sectors that provide materials and services.\347\
As indicated above, the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc are projected
to cause small changes in oil and natural gas production and prices. As
a result, demand for labor employed in oil and natural gas-related
activities and associated industries might experience adjustments as
there may be increases in compliance-related labor requirements as well
as changes in employment due to quantity effects in directly regulated
sectors and sectors that consume oil and natural gas products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \347\ Employment figure drawn from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Current Employment Statistics for NAICS code 211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?

    To satisfy the requirement of E.O. 12866 and to inform the public,
the EPA estimated the climate and health benefits due to the emissions
reductions projected under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc. The
EPA expects climate and health benefits due to the emissions reductions
projected under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc. The EPA estimated
the global social benefits of CH4 emission reductions
expected from this proposed rule using the SC-CH4 estimates
presented in the ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990 (IWG
2021)'' published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). The SC-CH4 is the
monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase. In principle, SC-CH4 includes the value of all
climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from
increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy
systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of
ecosystem services. The SC-CH4 therefore, reflects the
societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one
metric ton and is the theoretically appropriate value to use in
conducting benefit-cost

analyses of policies that affect CH4 emissions.
    The interim SC-GHG estimates were developed over many years, using
a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science
available at the time of that process, and with input from the public.
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021
Technical Support Document (TSD): Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021),
the EPA agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most
appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been
developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The EPA estimated the PV of the climate benefits over the 2023 to
2035 period to be $55 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The EAV of
these benefits is estimated to be $5.2 billion per year at a 3-percent
discount rate. These values represent only a partial accounting of
climate impacts from methane emissions and do not account for health
effects of ozone exposure from the increase in methane emissions.
    Under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, the EPA expects that
VOC emission reductions will improve air quality and are likely to
improve health and welfare associated with exposure to ozone,
PM2.5, and HAP. Calculating ozone impacts from VOC emissions
changes requires information about the spatial patterns in those
emissions changes. In addition, the ozone health effects from the
proposed rule will depend on the relative proximity of expected VOC and
ozone changes to population. In this analysis, we have not
characterized VOC emissions changes at a finer spatial resolution than
the national total. In light of these uncertainties, we present an
illustrative screening analysis in Appendix B of the RIA based on
modeled oil and natural gas VOC contributions to ozone concentrations
as they occurred in 2017 and do not include the results of this
analysis in the estimate of benefits and net benefits projected from
this proposal.

XVII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and EOs can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is an economically significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with this action. This analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Proposed Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural
Gas Sector Climate Review'', is available in the docket and describes
in detail the EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various sources
of uncertainties affecting the estimates.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in the proposed amendments
for 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOOO and OOOOa, have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA.
The information collection activities in the proposed rules for 40 CFR
part 60, subparts OOOOb and OOOOc, will be submitted for approval to
OMB under the PRA as part of a supplemental proposed rule.\348\ The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has
been assigned EPA ICR number 2523.04. You can find a copy of the ICR in
the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ While not quantified in this proposal, the EPA anticipates
the estimated ICR burden of proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc to be
at least as burdensome as NSPS OOOOa. The EPA anticipates some
sources may have similar ICR burden to NSPS OOOOa. Examples of these
include fugitive emissions from compressor stations, pneumatic
controllers at gas processing, centrifugal compressors, pneumatic
pumps, well completions, and sweetening units. The EPA anticipates
other sources could have dissimilar burden to NSPS OOOOa because the
standards are different or are brand new to this proposal. Examples
of these include fugitive emissions from well sites, storage
vessels, pneumatic controllers, reciprocating compressors, liquids
unloading, and equipment leaks at gas plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule for this action will include updates to the CFR to
reflect the disapproval of the 2020 Policy Rule that was effectuated by
the joint resolution enacted pursuant to the CRA on June 30, 2021. The
EPA is not soliciting comment on these updates. In addition, this rule
proposes amendments to the 2016 NSPS OOOOa to address (1) certain
resulting inconsistencies between the VOC and methane standards
resulting from the CRA, and (2) rescind certain determinations made in
the 2020 Technical Rule, with respect to fugitive emissions monitoring
at low production well sites and gathering and boosting stations as
they were not supported by the record for that rule, or by our
subsequent information and analysis. The EPA is also proposing further
amendments to its 2016 NSPS OOOOa to address technical and
implementation issues.
    This ICR reflects the EPA's proposed amendments to the 2016 NSPS
OOOOa. The information collected will be used by the EPA and delegated
State and local agencies to determine the compliance status of affected
facilities subject to the rule.
    The respondents are owners or operators of onshore oil and natural
gas affected facilities (40 CFR 60.5365a). For the purposes of this
ICR, it is assumed that oil and natural gas affected facilities located
in the U.S. are owned and operated by the oil and natural gas industry,
and that none of the affected facilities in the U.S. are owned or
operated by State, local, Tribal or the Federal government. All
affected facilities are assumed to be privately owned for-profit
businesses.
    The EPA estimates an average of 3,268 respondents will be affected
by NSPS OOOOa over the three-year period (2021-2023). The average
annual burden for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
these owners and operators is 283,030 person-hours, with an average
annual cost of $93,779,839 over the three-year period (2021-2023).
    Respondents/affected entities: Oil and natural gas operators and
owners.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 3,268.
    Frequency of response: Varies depending on affected facility.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \349\ The specific frequency for each information collection
activity within this request is shown in Tables 1a through 1d of the
Supporting Statement in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total estimated burden: 283,030 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $93,779,839 (2019$), which includes no
capital or O&M costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than December
15, 2021. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in the oil
or natural gas industry whose parent company has revenues or numbers of
employees below the SBA Size Standards for the relevant NAICS code; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review
in the docket and is summarized here.
    The IRFA describes the reason why the proposed rule is being
considered and describes the objectives and legal basis of the proposed
rule, as well as discusses related rules affecting the oil and natural
gas sector. The IRFA describes the EPA's examination of small entity
effects prior to proposing a regulatory option and provides information
about steps taken to minimize significant impacts on small entities
while achieving the objectives of the rule.
    The EPA also summarized the potential regulatory cost impacts of
the proposed rule and alternatives in Section 2 of the RIA. The
analysis in the IRFA drew upon some of the same analyses and
assumptions as the analyses presented in the RIA. The IRFA analysis is
presented in its entirely in Section 4.3 of the RIA.
    We estimated cost-to-sales ratios (CSR) for each small entity to
summarize the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. In the
processing segment, we find that average compliance costs are expected
to be negative, and no entity has a cost-to-sales ratio greater than
either 1 percent or 3 percent. In the production segment, when expected
revenues from natural gas product recovery are included, 101 small
entities (7.2 percent) have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 1
percent, but none have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent.
When expected revenues from natural gas product recovery are excluded,
the number of small entities with cost-to-sales ratios greater than 1
percent increases to 331 (23 percent); about half of those small
entities (11 percent) also have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3
percent.
    The analysis above is subject to a number of caveats and
limitations. These are discussed in detail in the IRFA, as well as in
Section 4.3 of the RIA. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the
EPA also convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives
that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR
Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on
issues related to elements of an IRFA. A copy of the full SBAR Panel
Report is available in the rulemaking docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The proposed NSPS and EG do not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and do not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed NSPS
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate or the private sector in any one year. For projected cost
estimates, see ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards
of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Climate Review'', which is available in the docket. The EG is proposed
under CAA section 111(d) and does not impose any direct compliance
requirements on designated facilities, apart from the requirement for
States to develop State plans. As explained in section XIV.G., the EG
also does not impose specific requirements on Tribal governments that
have designated facilities located in their area of Indian country. The
burden for States to develop State plans following promulgation of the
rule is estimated to be below $100 million in any one year. Thus, the
EG is not subject to the requirements of section 203 or section 205 of
the UMRA.
    The NSPS and EG are also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because, as described in 2 U.S.C. 1531-38, they contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The NSPS and EG action imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
Specifically, for the EG the State governments to which rule
requirements apply are not considered small governments. In light of
the interest among governmental entities, the EPA conducted pre-
proposal outreach with national organizations representing States and
Tribal governmental entities while formulating the proposed rule as
discussed in section VII. The EPA considered the stakeholders'
experiences and lessons learned to help inform how to better structure
this proposal and consider ongoing challenges that will require
continued collaboration with stakeholders. With this proposal, the EPA
seeks further input from States and Tribes. For public input to be
considered during the formal rulemaking, please submit comments on this
proposed action to the formal regulatory docket at EPA Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317 so that the EPA may consider those comments during
the development of the final rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue an action that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed action.
    The proposed NSPS OOOOb does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
    The proposed EG OOOOc may have federalism implications because
development of State plans may entail many hours of staff time to
develop and coordinate programs for compliance with the proposed rule,
as well as time to work with State legislatures as appropriate, and
develop a plan submittal. The Agency understands that the EG may impose
a burden on States and is committed to providing aid and guidance to
States through the plan development process. In the spirit of E.O.
13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications
between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically
solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials
including information on costs associated with developing and
submitting State plans in accordance with EG OOOOc.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Federally recognized
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law, and does not have
substantial direct effects on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in E.O. 13175. 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000). The majority
of the designated facilities impacted by proposed NSPS and EG on Tribal
lands are owned by private entities, and Tribes will not be directly
impacted by the compliance costs associated with this rulemaking. There
would only be Tribal implications associated with this rulemaking in
the case where a unit is owned by a Tribal government or in the case of
the NSPS, a Tribal government is given delegated authority to enforce
the rulemaking. Tribes are not required to develop plans to implement
the EG under CAA section 111(d) for designated existing sources. The
EPA notes that this proposal does not directly impose specific
requirements on designated facilities, including those located in
Indian country, but before developing any standards for sources on
Tribal land, the EPA would consult with leaders from affected Tribes.
    Consistent with previous actions affecting the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category, there is significant Tribal interest
because of the growth of the oil and natural gas production in Indian
country. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA will engage in consultation
with Tribal officials during the development of this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined
by E.O. 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. Accordingly, the agency has evaluated the environmental
health and welfare effects of climate change on children. GHGs,
including methane, contribute to climate change and are emitted in
significant quantities by the oil and gas industry. The EPA believes
that the GHG emission reductions resulting from implementation of these
proposed standards and guidelines, if finalize will further improve
children's health. The assessment literature cited in the EPA's 2009
Endangerment Findings concluded that certain populations and life
stages, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most
vulnerable to climate-related health effects. The assessment literature
since 2009 strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed
findings regarding these groups' vulnerabilities and the projected
impacts they may experience. These assessments describe how children's
unique physiological and developmental factors contribute to making
them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Impacts to children are
expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne
illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather
events. In addition, children are among those especially susceptible to
most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat
waves, storms, and floods. Additional health concerns may arise in low
income households, especially those with children, if climate change
reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food
insecurity within households. More detailed information on the impacts
of climate change to human health and welfare is provided in section
III of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action, which is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, has a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. To estimate the potential impacts of the
proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc on crude oil and natural gas
production, the EPA developed a pair of single-market, static partial-
equilibrium analyses of national crude oil and natural gas markets.
These analyses are presented in the RIA for this action, which is in
the public docket. We treat crude oil markets and natural gas markets
separately in these models. The EPA estimated that the proposed rule
could result in a maximum decrease in annual natural gas production of
about 249 million Mcf in 2026 (or about 0.8 percent of natural gas
production). We estimated the maximum annual reduction in crude oil
production would be about 12.2 million barrels (or about 0.3 percent of
crude oil production). Before 2026, the modeled market impacts are much
smaller than the 2026 impacts as only the incremental requirements
under the proposed NSPS OOOOb are assumed to be in effect. As
regulatory costs are projected to decline after 2026, the modelled
market impacts for years after 2026 are smaller than the peaks
estimated for 2026. As regulatory costs are projected to decline after
2026, the modelled market impacts for years after 2026 are smaller than
the peaks estimated for 2026. The energy impacts the EPA estimates from
these rules may be under- or over-estimates of the true energy impacts
associated with this action. For more information on the estimated
energy effects, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This proposed action for NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc involves technical
standards.\350\ Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Standards
of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Climate Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network
(NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute

(ANSI). Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were
identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 21, and 22 and none were brought
to its attention in comments. All potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
for this rule. Two VCS were identified as an acceptable alternative to
EPA test methods for the purpose of this proposed rule. First, ANSI/
ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (Part 10) (manual
portions only and not the instrumental portion) was identified to be
used in lieu of EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 15A and 16A. This standard
includes manual and instructional methods of analysis for carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen,
and sulfur dioxide. Second, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 18 with the following caveats, only use when the target
compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM
D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total
VOC Method. (ASTM D6420-99 (2010) is not incorporated by reference in
40 CFR part 60.) The search identified 19 VCS that were potentially
applicable for this proposed rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
However, these have been determined to not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation of data and other important
technical and policy considerations. For additional information, please
see the September 10, 2021, memo titled, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review'' in the public docket. The EPA plans to propose the regulatory
language for NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc through a supplemental action. At
that time, the EPA will include any appropriate incorporation by
reference in accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5 as discussed
below. The EPA anticipates that the following ten standards would be
incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ The EPA is not proposing changes to previously conducted
searches for 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOOO and OOOOa. Therefore,
this section only describes proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc
standards and searches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ASTM D86-96, Distillation of Petroleum Products (Approved
April 10, 1996) covers the distillation of natural gasolines, motor
gasolines, aviation gasolines, aviation turbine fuels, special boiling
point spirits, naphthas, white spirit, kerosines, gas oils, distillate
fuel oils, and similar petroleum products, utilizing either manual or
automated equipment.
     ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography covers the determination
of the chemical composition of natural gases and similar gaseous
mixtures within a certain range of composition. This test method may be
abbreviated for the analysis of lean natural gases containing
negligible amounts of hexanes and higher hydrocarbons, or for the
determination of one or more components.
     ASTM D3588-98 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Practice for
Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of
Gaseous Fuel covers procedures for calculating heating value, relative
density, and compressibility factor at base conditions for natural gas
mixtures from compositional analysis. It applies to all common types of
utility gaseous fuels.
     ASTM D4891-89 (Reapproved 2006), Standard Test Method for
Heating Value of Gases in Natural Gas Range by Stoichiometric
Combustion covers the determination of the heating value of natural
gases and similar gaseous mixtures within a certain range of
composition.
     ASTM D6522-00 (Reapproved December 2005), Standard Test
Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and
Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers covers the determination of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and oxygen concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from natural gas-fired reciprocating engines, combustion
turbines, boilers, and process heaters.
     ASTM E168-92, General Techniques of Infrared Quantitative
Analysis covers the techniques most often used in infrared quantitative
analysis. Practices associated with the collection and analysis of data
on a computer are included as well as practices that do not use a
computer.
     ASTM E169-93, General Techniques of Ultraviolet
Quantitative Analysis (Approved May 15, 1993) provide general
information on the techniques most often used in ultraviolet and
visible quantitative analysis. The purpose is to render unnecessary the
repetition of these descriptions of techniques in individual methods
for quantitative analysis.
     ASTM E260-96, General Gas Chromatography Procedures
(Approved April 10, 1996) is a general guide to the application of gas
chromatography with packed columns for the separation and analysis of
vaporizable or gaseous organic and inorganic mixtures and as a
reference for the writing and reporting of gas chromatography methods.
     ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (Issued August 31, 1981) covers
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
     EPA-600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards (Issued May 2012) is
mandatory for certifying the calibration gases being used for the
calibration and audit of ambient air quality analyzers and continuous
emission monitors that are required by numerous parts of the CFR.
    The EPA determined that the ASTM and ASME/ANSI standards,
notwithstanding the age of the standards, are reasonably available
because it they are available for purchase from the following
addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959;
or ProQuest, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016-5990. The EPA determined that the EPA standard is reasonably
available because it is publicly available through the EPA's website:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100EKJR.pdf.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in the RIA prepared under
E.O. 12866 for this proposal. In Section 4 of the RIA, the EPA presents
a qualitative discussion of the climate impacts of GHGs and
environmental justice. The section also presents a set of limited
quantitative environmental justice analyses focused on the current
distribution of VOC and HAP emissions from oil and natural gas sector.
These analyses evaluated baseline scenarios

and enabled us to characterize risks due to oil and natural gas VOC and
HAP emissions prior to implementation of the proposed rule. These
analyses potentially suggest that VOC and HAP emissions from the oil
and natural gas sector may disproportionately impact vulnerable
populations or overburdened communities under baseline scenarios;
however, various uncertainties and data gaps remain, and should be
taken into consideration when interpreting these results. Additionally,
we lack key information that would be needed to characterize post-
control risks under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc or the
regulatory alternatives analyzed in the RIA, preventing the EPA from
analyzing spatially differentiated outcomes. While a definitive
assessment of the impacts of this proposed rule on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples was not
performed, the EPA believes that this action will achieve substantial
methane, VOC, and HAP emission reductions and will further improve
environmental justice community health and welfare. The EPA believes
that any potential environmental justice populations that may
experience disproportionate impacts in the baseline may realize
disproportionate improvements in air quality resulting from emission
reductions.
    In addition, the EPA provided the public, including those
communities disproportionately impacted by the burdens of pollution,
opportunities for meaningful engagement with the EPA on this action. A
summary of outreach activities conducted by the Agency and what we
heard from communities is provided in section VI of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-24202 Filed 11-5-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59684-59685]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9901-48-OGC]

Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement
agreement to address a lawsuit filed by the American Forest & Paper
Association, Inc. and American Wood Council (``Petitioners'') in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia: American
Forest and Paper Association, Inc. and American Wood Council v. EPA,
No. 12-1452 (D.C. Cir.). Petitioners filed a petition for review
challenging EPA's final rule entitled ``Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule,'' (Oct. 30, 2009) (``GHG Reporting
Rule''). Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement,
Petitioners would dismiss their claims if, at the conclusion of a
rulemaking process that has included notice and an opportunity for
public comment, EPA promulgates in final form an amendment to the GHG
Reporting Rule that includes changes that are substantially the same
substance as set forth in Attachment A to the proposed settlement
agreement. Nothing in the proposed settlement agreement limits or
modifies EPA's discretion under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by October 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2013-0181, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ragan Tate, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The proposed settlement agreement would resolve a lawsuit filed by
the American Forest & Paper Association, Inc. and American Wood Council
seeking to compel the Agency to

promulgate a proposed rule on the issue of whether the GHG Reporting
Rule should be amended by the inclusion of proposed amendments of the
same substance as set forth in Attachment A to the proposed settlement
agreement. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Petitioners would
dismiss their claims if EPA promulgates in final form an amendment to
the GHG Reporting Rule that includes changes that are substantially the
same substance as set forth in Attachment A to the proposed settlement
agreement. The proposed settlement agreement further states that in the
event not all such changes are made that are substantially the same
substance as set forth in Attachment A to the proposed settlement
agreement, the Petitioners would file a stipulation of dismissal for
the issues that correspond to such changes that were made, and for
those issues that were not resolved, with the creation of a new docket
for those issues that were not resolved.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement agreement limits or modifies
EPA's discretion under the Clean Air Act in either the related notice
and comment rulemaking process or otherwise. The EPA reserves the
discretion to promulgate a final rule relating to any amendment to or
revision of the GHG Reporting Rule and by this proposed settlement
agreement has not obligated itself to issue any final rule which
includes the proposed changes contained in Attachment A to the proposed
settlement agreement.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines that consent to this settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2013-0181) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: September 20, 2013.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-23690 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20756]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08142]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-270, OMB Control No. 3235-0292]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form F-6

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form F-6 (17 CFR 239.36) is a form used by foreign companies to
register the offer and sale of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). Form F-6
requires disclosure of information regarding the terms of the
depository bank, fees charged, and a description of the ADRs. No
special information regarding the foreign company is required to be
prepared or disclosed, although the foreign company must be one which
periodically furnishes information to the Commission. The information
is needed to ensure that investors in ADRs have full disclosure of
information concerning the deposit agreement and the foreign company.
Form F-6 takes approximately 1.35 hour per response to prepare and is
filed by 643 respondents annually. We estimate that 25% of the 1.35
hour per response (0.338 hours) is prepared by the filer for a total
annual reporting burden of 217 hours (0.338 hours per response x 643
responses). The information provided on Form F-6 is mandatory to best
ensure full disclosure of ADRs being issued in the U.S. All information
provided to the Commission is available for public review upon request.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 15, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08142 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel=File-List href="FomesafenRegistrations_files/filelist.xml">
<title>Ingredient Query Results</title>

<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http_equiv=Content-Type>

Pending and Active Registrations For

Ingredient

123802 / 108731-70-0 / Sodium salt of fomesafen

Registration #<o:p></o:p>

Registration
  Name<o:p></o:p>

Company #<o:p></o:p>

Company Name<o:p></o:p>

100-993

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-1016

FOMESAFEN PASTE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-1017

FOMESAFEN TECHNICAL

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-1092

FOMESAFEN SODIUM SALT AQUEOUS CONCENTRATE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-1101

FLEXSTAR

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-1103

FOMESAFEN SODIUM SALT AQUEOUS CONCENTRATE 48%

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

100-REAI

PREFIX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

7969-82

BAS 530 04 HERBICIDE

7969

BASF CORPORATION

7969-83

FASTER HERBICIDE

7969

BASF CORPORATION

AL030003

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

AR030006

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

GA880005

REFLEX 2LC HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

MS980002

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

NC870005

REFLEX 2LC HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

NC950010

REFLEX 2LC HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

NE060002

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

SC030006

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

SC900004

REFLEX 2LC HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

TX040002

REFLEX HERBICIDE

100

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

00IN06

800014

IN State Chemist Office

01AR11

800003

AR State Plant Board

01DE01

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

01IN03

800014

IN State Chemist Office

01MD08

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

01ME02

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

01MI08

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

01MI09

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

01MN14

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

01MO02

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

01ND14

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

01NY02

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

01NY03

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

01OK05

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

01PA02

800038

PA Dept. of Agriculture

01VA05

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

02AR03

800003

AR State Plant Board

02DE02

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

02IL04

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

02IN05

800014

IN State Chemist Office

02MD06

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

02ME03

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

02MI11

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

02MI14

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

02MN09

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

02MO03

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

02ND09

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

02NY02

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

02NY03

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

02OK07

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

02VA03

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

03AR05

800003

AR State Plant Board

03AR07

800003

AR State Plant Board

03DE05

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

03IL03

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

03IL04

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

03IN02

800014

IN State Chemist Office

03MD03

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

03MI08

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

03MI12

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

03MN10

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

03MO03

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

03ND07

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

03NE07

800027

NE Department of Agriculture

03NY01

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

03NY02

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

03OK03

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

03OK07

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

03VA05

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

04AR04

800003

AR State Plant Board

04CO08

800005

CO Dept. of Agriculture

04DE04

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

04IA11

800015

IA Department of Agriculture

04IL04

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

04IN13

800014

IN State Chemist Office

04MD06

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

04ME01

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

04MI10

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

04MI11

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

04MN12

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

04MO03

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

04ND03

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

04NE05

800027

NE Department of Agriculture

04NY01

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

04NY02

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

04OK03

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

04PA05

800038

PA Dept. of Agriculture

04VA05

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

05AR02

800003

AR State Plant Board

05CO13

800005

CO Dept. of Agriculture

05DE03

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

05IA03

800015

IA Department of Agriculture

05IA04

800015

IA Department of Agriculture

05IL04

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

05IN05

800014

IN State Chemist Office

05MD05

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

05ME04

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

05MI11

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

05MI12

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

05MN09

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

05MO03

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

05ND05

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

05NE04

800027

NE Department of Agriculture

05NY03

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

05NY04

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

05OK02

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

05PA03

800038

PA Dept. of Agriculture

05VA08

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

06AR04

800003

AR State Plant Board

06DE03

800007

DE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

06GA03

800010

GA Dept. of Agriculture

06GA05

800010

GA Dept. of Agriculture

06IN06

800014

IN State Chemist Office

06MD04

800020

MD Dept. of Agriculture

06ME03

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

06MI12

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

06MI13

800022

MI Dept. of Agriculture

06MN14

800023

MN Dept. of Agriculture

06MO03

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

06NC06

800033

NC Dept. of Agriculture

06ND07

800034

ND Dept. of Agriculture

06NY03

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

06OK01

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

06PA04

800038

PA Dept. of Agriculture

06VA05

800046

VA Department of Agriculture & Consumer Service

92AR04

800003

AR State Plant Board

92IL04

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

93NY07

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

94AR09

800003

AR State Plant Board

94IL02

800013

IL Dept. of Agriculture

94MO01

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

94MS07

800024

MS Dept. of Agriculture & Commerce

94OK06

800036

OK Dept. of Agriculture

95MO02

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

95PA09

800038

PA Dept. of Agriculture

96ME04

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

96MO02

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

97ME02

800019

ME Department of Agriculture

97MO04

800025

MO Dept. of Agriculture

97NY06

800032

NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation

<o:p> </o:p>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21709-21711]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4811; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-104-AD;
Amendment 39-18481; AD 2016-08-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, &
702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-
600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by
the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack
(AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. This AD
requires replacement of affected AOA transducers. We are issuing this
AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers;
incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late
activation of the stick pusher.

DATES: This AD is effective May 18, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 18,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4811.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4811; 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 Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is 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 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; 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 certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-
2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on November 12, 2015 (80 FR 69896) (``the NPRM'').
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-
18, dated July 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that a number of AOA transducers installed on
Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, and CL-600-2E25
aeroplanes were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality control
problem at both the production and repair facilities. Incorrect
calibration of the AOA transducer could result in a late activation
of the stick pusher.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the incorrectly
calibrated AOA transducer.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4811.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the one comment received. The commenter
supported the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March
30, 2015. This service information

describes procedures for replacement of transducers with correctly
calibrated AOA transducers. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10,000 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,136,000, or $10,340 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.

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):

2016-08-05 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18481. Docket No. FAA-
2015-4811; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-104-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated
in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)
of this AD.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10999 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial
numbers 15001 through 15990 inclusive.
    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes,
serial numbers 19001 through 19990 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly
calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall
protection system. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace
incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the
transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD, replace the AOA transducers
identified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015, with correctly
calibrated AOA transducers, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated
March 30, 2015.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an AOA transducer having a part number or serial
number identified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30, 2015.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-18, dated July 16, 2015,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4811.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-069, dated March 30,
2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,

Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08346 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P