First attempt at repair within 30 days of finding fugitive emissions. Final repair within 30 days of first attempt.
Fugitive Emissions: Well Sites

>0 to <5 tpy methane
Calculate and maintain record of baseline methane emissions.
Fugitive Emissions: Compressor Stations
Quarterly OGI monitoring following Appendix K. (Optional quarterly EPA Method 21 monitoring with 500 ppm defined as a leak).

First attempt at repair within 30 days of finding fugitive emissions. Final repair within 30 days of first attempt.
Pneumatic Controllers: Subcategory 1 (at sites with onsite power available)
VOC and methane emission bleed rate of zero
Pneumatic Controllers: Subcategory 2 (at sites where onsite power is not available -continuous bleed natural gas driven)
Natural gas bleed rate no greater than 6 scfh
Pneumatic Controllers: Subcategory 2 (at sites where onsite power is not available -intermittent natural gas driven)
Monitor and repair through fugitives program

Pneumatic Controllers: Natural Gas Processing Plants
Zero natural gas bleed rate
Reciprocating Compressors
Rod packing changeout based on annual monitoring (when measured leak rate exceeds 2 scfm)
Pneumatic Pumps: Natural Gas Processing Plants
Zero natural gas emissions
Equipment Leaks at Gas Plants
Bimonthly OGI LDAR program (NSPS VVa as optional alternative)

      The EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.24a(b) require that standards of performance shall either be based on allowable rate or limit of emissions, except when the EPA identifies cases in an EG where it would not be feasible to prescribe or enforce a rate or limit. Put another way, 40 CFR 60.24a(b) permits the EPA to identify cases where it is not feasible for states to prescribe or enforce a numerical standard, and in those cases the EPA can include non-numerical emissions limitations such as design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards, or a combination thereof, in the EG. See also definition of "standard of performance" in 40 CFR 60.21a(f). This authority in the context of the EG is akin to the EPA's authority under CAA section 111(h) to prescribe non-numerical standards where the Administrator determines it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical standard of performance. Where the EPA finalizes EG that authorize design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or a combination thereof, the state "plan shall, to the degree possible, set forth the emission reductions achievable by implementation of such standards, and may permit compliance by the use of equipment determined by the State to be equivalent to that prescribed" by the state plan. See 40 CFR 60.24a(b).
      For the designated facilities listed in Table 21 the EPA has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical standard. As such, for these designated facilities, the EPA is proposing presumptive standards that are comprised of design, equipment, work practice, and/or operational standards. For these designated facilities, states are generally expected to establish the same non-numerical presumptive standards in Table 21. If states do not incorporate the presumptive standards included in the final EG into their state plan, but instead wish to utilize a different design, equipment, work practice, and/or operational standard for any of the designated facilities listed in Table 21, then the EPA is proposing to require that the state include in its plan a demonstration of how that standard will achieve a reduction in methane emissions at least equivalent to the reduction in methane emissions achieved by application of the presumptive standards included in the final EG. Such a demonstration should take into account, among other factors, the timelines for compliance. The EPA believes that this requirement is consistent with the AMEL provision in CAA section 111(h)(3), which requires a demonstration that any alternative "will achieve a reduction in emissions . . . at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions" achieved by EPA's standard, and the technical completeness criteria found at 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(3)(iv), which requires that state plans must include a "demonstration that the State plan submittal is projected to achieve emissions performance under the applicable EG."
      To the extent that a state determines the presumptive standards in the final EG are not reasonable for a particular designated facility due to remaining useful life and other factors, the statute requires that the EPA's regulations under CAA section 111(d) permit states to consider such factors in applying a standard of performance. As such, the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.24a(e) allow states to consider remaining useful life and other factors to apply a less stringent standard of performance to a designated facility or class of facilities if one or more demonstrations are made. These demonstrations include unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age, location, or basic process design; physical impossibility of installing necessary control equipment; or other factors specific to the facility (or class of facilities) that make application of a less stringent standard or final compliance time significantly more reasonable. The implementing regulations also clarify that, absent such a demonstration, the state's standards of performance must be "no less stringent than the corresponding" EG. See 40 CFR 60.24a(c).
      The EPA intends to provide further clarification on the general process and requirements for accounting for remaining useful life and other factors, including on the reasonableness aspect of the required demonstration, via a rulemaking to amend the implementing regulations in the near future. However, the EPA also recognizes that the oil and natural gas industry is unique such that the general approach to considering remaining useful life and other factors in the implementing regulations may not be an ideal fit. For example, the sheer number and variety of designated facilities in the oil and natural gas industry could make a source-specific (or even a class-specific) evaluation of remaining useful life and other factors extremely difficult and burdensome for states that want to undertake a demonstration. In addition, these designated facilities generally have fewer major capital expenses compared with other industries for which EPA has previously issued EG under CAA section 111(d), and many of the proposed presumptive standards generally take the form of design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards rather than numerical emission limitations. Given these facts, the EPA believes that it would likely be difficult for states to determine that the presumptive standards are not reasonable for the vast majority of designated facilities. The EPA is soliciting comment on these observations, and any other facts and circumstances that are unique to the oil and natural gas industry that could impact the remaining-useful-life-and-other-factors demonstration. The EPA is also soliciting comment as to whether the Agency should include specific provisions regarding the consideration of remaining useful life and other factors in this EG that would supplement or supersede the general provisions in the implementing regulations.
      The EPA intends to provide further clarification on the general process and requirements for accounting for remaining useful life and other factors, including on the reasonableness aspect of the required demonstration, via a rulemaking to amend the implementing regulations in the near future. However, the EPA also recognizes that the oil and natural gas industry is unique such that the general approach to considering remaining useful life and other factors in the implementing regulations may not be an ideal fit. For example, the sheer number and variety of designated facilities in the oil and natural gas industry could make a source-specific (or even a class-specific) evaluation of remaining useful life and other factors extremely difficult and burdensome for states that want to undertake a demonstration. In addition, the presumptive standards for these designated facilities generally entail fewer major capital expenses compared with other industries for which EPA has previously issued EG under CAA section 111(d), and many of the proposed presumptive standards generally take the form of design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards rather than numerical emission limitations. Further, in proposing the presumptive standards for existing source, the EPA has deliberately crafted subcategories and included certain flexibilities (e.g., in cases of technical infeasibility) such that the EPA believes the presumptive standards should be achievable and cost-effective for a wide variety of facilities across the source category. Given these facts, the EPA believes that it would likely be difficult for states to demonstrate that the presumptive standards are not reasonable for the vast majority of designated facilities. The EPA is soliciting comment on these observations, and any other facts and circumstances that are unique to the oil and natural gas industry that could impact the remaining-useful-life-and-other-factors demonstration. The EPA is also soliciting comment as to whether the Agency should include specific provisions regarding the consideration of remaining useful life and other factors in this EG that would supplement or supersede the general provisions in the implementing regulations.
      To the extent a state chooses to submit a plan that includes standards of performance that are more stringent than the requirements of the final EG, states have the authority to do so under CAA section 116, and the EPA has the authority to approve such plans and render them Federally enforceable if all applicable requirements are met. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, (1976). See also 40 CFR 60.24a(f). The EPA acknowledges that in the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, it previously took the position that Union Electric does not control the question of whether CAA section 111(d) state plans may be more stringent than Federal requirements. The ACE rule took this position on the basis that Union Electric on its face applies only to CAA section 110, and that it is potentially salient that CAA section 111(d) is predicated on specific technologies whereas CAA section 110 gives states broad latitude in the measures used for attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 84 FR 32559-61. The EPA no longer takes this position. Upon further evaluation, the EPA believes that because of the structural similarities between CAA sections 110 and 111(d), CAA section 116 as interpreted by Union Electric requires the EPA to approve CAA section 111(d) state plans that are more stringent than required by the EG if the plan is otherwise is compliance with all applicable requirements. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009). The D.C. Circuit in Union Electric rejected a construction of CAA sections 110 and 116 that measures more stringent than those required to attain the NAAQS cannot be approved into a Federally enforceable State Implementation Plan (SIP) but must be adopted and enforced only as a matter of state law. Id. at 263-64. While the BSER and the NAAQS are distinct from one another in that the former is technology-based and the latter is based on ambient air quality, both CAA sections 111(d) and 110 are structurally similar in that states must adopt and submit to the EPA plans which include requirements to meet the objectives of each respective section. Requiring states to enact and enforce two sets of standards, one that is a Federally approved CAA section 111(d) plan and one that is a stricter state plan, runs directly afoul of the court's holding that there is no basis for interpreting CAA section 116 in such manner. Therefore, the EPA interprets CAA sections 111(d) and 116 as allowing states to include, and the EPA to approve, more stringent standards of performance in state plans. The EPA notes that its authority is constrained to approving measures which comport with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. For example, CAA section 111(d) only contemplates that state plans include requirements for designated facilities, therefore the EPA believes it does not have the authority to approve and render Federally enforceable measures on other entities.
      The EPA is also aware that in the context of regulating the oil and natural gas industry many states have existing programs they may want to leverage for purposes of satisfying their CAA section 111(d) state plan obligations. The EPA anticipates providing information on ways in which state plans can accommodate existing state programs to the extent such programs are at least as stringent as the requirement of the final EG. Consistent with the proposed presumptive standards, the EPA proposes that a state plan which relies on an existing state program must still establish standards of performance that are in the same form as the presumptive standards. The EPA solicits comment on whether states relying on existing programs should be authorized to include a different form of standard in their plans so long as they demonstrate the equivalency of such standards to the level of stringency required under the final EG. The EPA proposes to require that, in situations where a state wishes to rely on state programs (statutes and/or regulations) that pre-date finalization of the EG proposed in this document to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 111(d), the state plan should identify which aspects of the existing state programs are being submitted for approval as Federally enforceable requirements under the plan, and include a detailed explanation and analysis of how the relied upon existing state programs are at least as stringent as the requirements of the final EG. The EPA notes that the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 60.27a(g) requires a copy of the actual state law/regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporation into the state plan. Put another way, where a state is relying on an existing state program for its plan, a copy of the pre-existing state statute or regulation underpinning the program would be required by this criterion, and would be a critical component of the EPA's evaluation of the approvability of the plan. The EPA also solicits comment on various ways in which existing state programs can be adopted into state plans. Particularly, the EPA is interested in how existing state programs that regulate both designated facilities and sources not considered as designated facilities under this EG could be tailored for a state plan to meet the requirements of CAA section 111(d).
      Providing Measures that Implement and Enforce Such Standards. As part of establishing standards of performance, state plans must also include compliance schedules for those standards. See 40 CFR 60.24a(a). Section XIV.E, explains how the EPA is proposing to approach compliance schedules. The EPA's implementing regulations require that, except where the state chooses to account for remaining useful life and other factors, state plans shall require final compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the compliance times specified in the EG. See 40 CFR 60.24a(c). Where a state applies a less stringent standard of performance because of remaining useful life and other factors, the compliance schedule must appropriately comport with that standard.
      In addition to establishing standards of performance and compliance schedules, state plans must also include, adequately document, and demonstrate the methods employed to implement and enforce the standards of performance such that the EPA can review and identify measures that assure transparent and verifiable implementation. As part of ensuring that regulatory obligations appropriately meet statutory requirements such as enforceability, the EPA has historically and consistently required that obligations placed on sources be quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. See 40 CFR 60.27a(g)(3)(vi). In accordance with the EPA's implementing regulations, standards of performance required for designated facilities as part of a state plan to implement the EG proposed here must be non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable. The EPA acknowledges that it may not be feasible to quantify certain non-numerical standards of performance included in the EG. As such, the EPA is proposing that standards of performance for this EG be quantifiable to the extent feasible. A state plan implementing the EG should include information adequate to support a determination by the EPA that the plan meets these requirements. Additionally, states must include appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that state plans adequately provide for the implementation and enforcement of standards of performance. For designated facilities where the EPA's presumptive standards include associated monitoring, reporting, and/or recordkeeping requirements, the EPA has determined that such requirements are necessary to ensure compliance. Thus, for those designated facilities, the EPA is proposing to require that the standards of performance established by states maintain the same monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, or equivalent requirements. For example, the EG's presumptive standards for fugitives monitoring at well sites includes requirements for owners and operators to maintain records and submit reports that demonstrate compliance with the monitoring and repair provisions. As such, the EPA is proposing that the portion of the state plan which establishes standards of performance for that designated facility also includes requirements for owners and operators to maintain records and submit reports that demonstrate compliance with the monitoring and repair provisions. Where a state plan adopts standards of performance that differ from the presumptive standards, the plan may accordingly include different monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements than those in the presumptive standards, but such requirements must be appropriate for the implementation and enforcement of the standards. For components of a state plan that differ from any presumptively approvable aspects of the final EG, the EPA will review the approvability of such components through notice and comment rulemaking.
      Emissions Inventories. The implementing regulations at 40 CFR 60.25a contain generally applicable requirements for emission inventories, source surveillance, and reports. State plans must include provisions to meet these requirements as well. Section 60.25a further specifies that such data shall be summarized in the plan, and emission rates of designated pollutants from designated facilities shall be correlated with applicable standards of performance. Typically, the EPA would expect that state plans would present this information on a source-specific or unit-specific level. However, the EPA recognizes that due to the very large number of existing oil and natural gas sources, and the frequent change of configuration and/or ownership, that it may not be practical to require states to compile this information in the same way that is typically expected for other industries under other EG. Therefore, the EPA is soliciting comment on whether to supersede the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25a(a) for purposes of this EG. The EPA may supersede any requirement in its implementing regulations for CAA section 111(d) if done so explicitly in the EG. See 40 CFR 60.20a(a)(1). Specially, for the reasons explained previously, the EPA believes that in this context it could be difficult for the state plans to include "an inventory of all designated facilities, including emission data for the designated pollutants and information related to emissions as specified in appendix D to this part" as required by the first sentence in 40 CFR 60.25a(a). The EPA understands that states may not have such an inventory of all designated facilities already available and that creating such an inventory could be resource intensive. Likewise, the EPA understands that states may not have site-specific emissions data for each designated facility, and that creating such an inventory could also be very resource intensive. The EPA does not believe that such detailed information is necessary for states to develop standards of performance, and that standards of performance could be developed with a different type of emissions inventory data. Therefore, in order to avoid the potential burden that could be imposed by applying 40 CFR 60.25a(a) as written to this EG, the EPA is soliciting comment on whether the Agency should supersede the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25a(a) for purposes of this EG, and replace that requirement with a different emissions inventory requirement that seeks to represent the same general type of information but allows states to utilize existing inventories and emissions data. An example of an inventory that could be leveraged, and on which the EPA specifically solicits comment, is the GHGRP. The EPA envisions a superseding requirement that would not impose such a resource intensive burden on states by allowing use of an inventory of GHG emissions data and operational data for designated facilities during the most recent calendar year for which data is available at the time of state plan development and/or submission. The emissions inventory data submitted for this purpose could be derived from the GHGRP, and/or other available existing inventory information available to the state. The EPA recognizes that in this situation the facility definitions used for purposes of compiling the emissions inventory data might not be fully aligned with the designated facilities in the EG, and that it is possible that there could be designated facilities under this EG that are not required to report under the emissions inventory program being relied upon. Further, the EPA recognizes that the GHGRP may include a reporting threshold and/or utilize emission factors in a different manner than the EG. The EPA solicits comment on whether it is appropriate to utilize or supersede 40 CFR 60.25a(a) for purposes of this EG. Specifically, the EPA solicits comment on the practicality of states compiling an inventory for all designated facilities and on what reasonable alternatives may be more practical.
      Meaningful Engagement. In establishing standards of performance and developing the state plan, the state rulemaking process must meet the minimum public participation requirements of the implementing regulations as applicable to these guidelines, including a public hearing and meaningful engagement with all members of the public, including vulnerable communities. In sections VI and VII of this preamble the EPA addresses the environmental justice considerations, implications and stakeholder outreach the agency is taking to help ensuring vulnerable communities are not disproportionately impacted by this rule. The EPA intends to propose meaningful engagement requirements in state plan development as part of the upcoming rulemaking addressing the vacated timing provisions within 40 CFR 60, subpart Ba.
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, 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 60, subpart Ba. Am. Lung Assoc. v. EPA, 985 F.3d 914, 991 (D.C. 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. 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 to propose 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." 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.
      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 notice. 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; it may not be appropriate to require a single compliance time. 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. 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.
     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). 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 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).
      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 subparts OOOOb and OOOOc 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 and OOOOc 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.
      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. 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. 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.
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 and EG will reduce about 21.4 million short tons of methane emissions reductions (480 million tons CO2 Eq.), 6.8 million short tons of VOC emissions reductions, and 210 thousand short tons of HAP emission reductions from facilities that are potentially affected by this proposal. The EPA estimated regulatory impacts beginning in 2023 as it represents the first full year of implementation of the proposed NSPS. The EPA assumes that emissions impacts of the proposed EG will begin in 2026. The EPA estimated 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 this proposed rule over the 2023 to 2035 period was estimated to be $8.9 billion (in 2019 dollars) using a 3-percent discount rate and $7.0 billion using a 7-percent discount rate. The EAV of these cost reductions is estimated to be $0.9 billion per year using a 3-percent discount rate and $0.9 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 $6.6 billion using a 3-percent discount rate and $5.4 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 $0.7 billion per year using a 3-percent discount rate and $0.7 billion using a 7-percent discount rate.
D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
[PLACEHOLDER]
E. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
      The EPA expects climate and health benefits due to the emissions reductions projected under this proposed rule. 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 EO13990 (IWG 2021). These SC-CH4 estimates are interim values developed under EO 13990 for use in benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of the impacts of climate change can be developed based on the best available science and economics.
      The EPA estimated the PV of the climate benefits over the 2023 to 2035 period to be $29 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The EAV of these benefits is estimated to be $2.9 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 rule, 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 sensitivity analysis in Appendix B of the Regulatory Impact Analysis 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 sensitivity analysis in the estimate of benefits (and net benefits) projected from this proposal.
XV. 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 below.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
[PLACEHOLDER]
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
[PLACEHOLDER]
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
[PLACEHOLDER]
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
      This action 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. However, in the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials.
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 EO 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 EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by EO 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
[PLACEHOLDER]
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
      This proposed action for NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc involves technical standards. 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 XX, 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 are incorporated by reference.
      :: 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 Web site: 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
[PLACEHOLDER]

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.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21158-21160]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0231; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-163-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of loose, broken, or backed
out spur gear bolts on the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA).
This proposed AD would require a revision to the airplane flight
manual, a revision to the maintenance or inspection program, and
replacement of HSTAs having certain part numbers. We are proposing this
AD to detect and correct loose spur gear bolts on the HSTA, which, if
combined with the failure of the primary load path, could lead to
failure of the HSTA and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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. 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>.

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-2014-
0231; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0231;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-163-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-18, dated July 16, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the

MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been a number of reports where the HSTA [horizontal
stabilizer trim actuator] spur gear bolts were found loose, broken
or backed out. Investigation revealed that the root cause of the
bolt loosening is due to incorrect bending of the anti-rotation tab
washer and the improper application of Loctite glue during
installation. Loose bolt(s) on the HSTA spur gear combined with the
failure of the primary load path, could lead to failure of the HSTA
and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
    Bombardier Aerospace has introduced a modified HSTA [part
number] P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2) to rectify the loose
bolt problem. However, this modified HSTA has several quality
control problems which could affect safety.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the
affected HSTA with the new HSTA P/N 604-92305-7 (vendor P/N 8454-3).

In addition to replacing any HSTA having the affected part number, this
proposed AD would require revising both the airplane flight manual and
airplane maintenance or inspection program.
    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-2014-
0231.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued the service information specified
below. The actions described in this service information are intended
to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
     Bombardier Temporary Revision 604/37, dated May 21, 2013,
to the Bombardier CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1.
     Bombardier Temporary Revision 605/18, dated May 21, 2013,
to the Bombardier CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1.
     Bombardier Revision Submission RS-CL604-055, dated April
27, 2012, to the Bombardier CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1.
     Bombardier Revision Submission RS-CL605-030, dated April
27, 2012, to the Bombardier CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-032, dated September
10, 2012.
     Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-002, dated September
10, 2012.

Clarification of Document Date

    Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-18, dated July 16, 2013,
states that Bombardier Revision Submissions RS-CL604-055 and RS-CL605-
030 are dated April 30, 2012; however, the date that appears on those
documents is April 27, 2012. We contacted Bombardier and verified that
the dates on the documents are correct.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to the
procedure specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. The request should
include a description of changes to the required inspections that will
ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 21 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $223,125, or $1,785 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0231; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-163-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 30, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
5301 and subsequent, equipped with horizontal stabilizer trim
actuator (HSTA) part number (P/N) 604-92305-3 (vendor P/N 8454-1) or
P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2).

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of loose, broken, or backed out
spur gear bolts on the HSTA. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct loose spur gear bolts on the HSTA, which, if combined with
the failure of the primary load path, could lead to failure of the
HSTA and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Normal Procedures section of the applicable Bombardier AFM to
include the information in the applicable temporary revision (TR)
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. The TRs
introduce revised procedures for the stabilizer trim system check.
Operate the airplane according to the limitations and procedures in
the applicable TR. The revision may be done by inserting copies of
the applicable TR specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD
in the AFM. When the TR has been included in the general revisions
of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM,
provided the relevant information in the general revision is
identical to that in the applicable TR and the TR may be removed.
    (1) Bombardier TR 604/37, dated May 21, 2013, to the Bombardier
CL-604 AFM, PSP 604-1.
    (2) Bombardier TR 605/18, dated May 21, 2013, to the Bombardier
CL-605 AFM, PSP 605-1.

(h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
Task 27-41-00-101, Operational Test (BITE) of the Horizontal-
Stabilizer Trim-control System (HSTCS), specified in the applicable
revision submission (RS) specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of
this AD. The initial compliance time for the operational test is
within 100 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. The
maintenance or inspection program revision may be done by inserting
a copy of the applicable RS specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD into the applicable time limits/maintenance checks (TLMC)
manual. When the RS has been included in the general revisions of
the TLMC manual, the general revisions may be inserted in the TLMC
manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is
identical to that in the applicable RS, and the RS may be removed.
    (1) Task 27-41-00-101, Operational Test (BITE) of the
Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-control System (HSTCS), specified in
Bombardier Revision Submission RS-CL604-055, dated April 27, 2012,
to Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of
Chapter 5 of the Bombardier CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks
(TLMC) Manual.
    (2) Task 27-41-00-101, Operational Test (BITE) of the
Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-control System (HSTCS), specified in
Bombardier Revision Submission RS-CL605-030, dated April 27, 2012,
to Section 5-10-40, Certification Maintenance Requirements, of
Chapter 5 of the Bombardier CL-605 TLMC Manual.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD.

(j) HSTA Replacement

    For airplanes equipped with an HSTA having P/N 604-92305-3
(vendor P/N 8454-1) or P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2): Within
3,000 flight hours or 26 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace any HSTA having P/N 604-92305-3
(vendor P/N 8454-1) or P/N 604-92305-5 (vendor P/N 8454-2) with an
HSTA having P/N 604-92305-7 (vendor P/N 8454-3), in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-
27-032, dated September 10, 2012; or 605-27-002, dated September 10,
2012; as applicable.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
HSTA having P/N 604-92305-3 (vendor P/N 8454-1) or P/N 604-92305-5
(vendor P/N 8454-2) on any airplane.

(l) 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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You
are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is
returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-18, dated July 16,
2013, 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-2014-0231.
    (2) 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 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 1, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-08463 Filed 4-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69634]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0784]

Guidance for Industry on Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Anticoccidial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of guidance for industry 217 entitled
``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Anticoccidial Drugs in Food-Producing
Animals.'' The guidance provides guidance to industry for designing and
conducting clinical effectiveness studies and describes criteria that
the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) thinks are the most
appropriate for the evaluation of the effectiveness of anticoccidial
drugs intended for use in poultry and other food-producing animals. The
guidance suggests times during the evaluation of effectiveness when
sponsors may wish to consult with CVM.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food
and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily R. Smith, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-135), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72422), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``Evaluating the Effectiveness of Anticoccidial Drugs in Food-Producing
Animals,'' giving interested persons until January 23, 2012, to comment
on the draft guidance. FDA received one comment on the draft guidance
and that comment was considered as the guidance was finalized. No
changes other than editorial changes were made to improve clarity. This
guidance for industry 217 supersedes the CVM draft guidance
for industry 40, entitled ``Draft Guideline for the Evaluation
of The Efficacy of Anticoccidial Drugs and Anticoccidial Drug
Combinations in Poultry,'' dated April 1992. The guidance announced in
this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated November 23, 2011.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the Agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in this guidance have been approved under
OMB control numbers 0910-0032 and 0910-0117.

IV. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 15, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28156 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4843-4844]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 117, 147, and 165

[USCG-2018-0049]

2017 Quarterly Listings; Safety Zones, Security Zones, Special
Local Regulations, Drawbridge Operation Regulations and Regulated
Navigation Areas

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of expired temporary rules issued.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notification of substantive rules
issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but
expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This
document lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation
areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the
Federal Register was not possible.

DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became
effective, primarily between July 2017 to September 2017, unless
otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published
in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed
online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this document contact
Yeoman First Class David Hager, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains
of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and
security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District
Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain
local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or
environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described
by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in
motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to
vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are
issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas
and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize
changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal
vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are
water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels
navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast
Guard District Commander.
    Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be
precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs
without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however,
often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press
releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by
Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the
rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the
end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the
contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local
regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation
regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement
action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal
Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation
without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard
periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security
zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and
drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in
this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal
Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if
sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect
or terminated.
    The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily
during the period between July 2017 to September 2017 unless otherwise
indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and
search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                           Type                        Location            Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-2017-0363......................  Safety Zones................  St. Croix, USVI.............        5/3/2017
USCG-2017-0368......................  Safety Zones................  Lorain, OH..................        7/1/2017
USCG-2017-0570......................  Safety Zones................  Michigan Zone...............        7/1/2017
USCG-2017-0638......................  Safety Zones................  Joliet, IL..................        7/1/2017
USCG-2017-0475......................  Special Local...............  Gulport, FL.................        7/1/2017
USCG-2017-0493......................  Safety Zones................  South Point, OH.............        7/1/2017
USCG-2017-0636......................  Safety Zones................  Marblehead, OH..............        7/2/2017
USCG-2017-0596......................  Special Local Regulations...  Greenup, KY.................        7/2/2017
USCG-2017-0367......................  Safety Zones................  Conneaut, OH................        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0266......................  Safety Zones................  Port Buffalo Zone...........        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0546......................  Safety Zones................  New Albany, IN..............        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0415......................  Safety Zones................  Michigan Zone...............        7/3/2017
USGC-2017-0642......................  Safety Zones................  Port Buffalo Zone...........        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0003......................  Safety Zones................  Benton County, WA...........        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0540......................  Safety Zones................  Clarksville, TN.............        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0504......................  Safety Zones................  Chattanooga, TN.............        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0515......................  Safety Zones................  Knoxville, TN...............        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0653......................  Safety Zones................  Newport, KY.................        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0639......................  Safety Zones................  Surf City, NC...............        7/3/2017
USCG-2017-0309......................  Special Local Regulations...  Manhattan, NY...............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0587......................  Safety Zones................  Gallipolis, OH..............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0478......................  Safety Zones................  Greenup, KY.................        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0632......................  Safety Zones................  Toledo, OH..................        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0575......................  Safety Zones................  Wheeling, WV................        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0582......................  Safety Zones................  Chester, WV.................        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0566......................  Safety Zones................  Naval Base, Guam............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0136......................  Safety Zones................  Myrtle Beach, SC............        7/4/2017

USCG-2017-0301......................  Safety Zones................  Charleston, SC..............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0285......................  Safety Zones................  Murrells Inlet, SC..........        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0022......................  Safety Zones................  Charleston, SC..............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0587......................  Safety Zones................  Gallipolis, OH..............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0650......................  Safety Zones................  Mobile, AL..................        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0583......................  Safety Zones................  Henderson, KY...............        7/4/2017
USCG-2017-0004......................  Safety Zones................  Skamokawa, WA...............        7/6/2017
USCG-2017-0001......................  Safety Zones................  Bainbridge Island, WA.......        7/8/2017
USCG-2017-0590......................  Safety Zones................  Port Long Island............        7/8/2017
USCG-2012-1036......................  Safety Zones................  Port Long Island............       7/15/2017
USCG-2017-0682......................  Regulated Navigation Areas..  Columbia River, Wauna.......       7/18/2017
USCG-2017-0701......................  Safety Zones................  Red Wing, MN................       7/20/2017
USCG-2017-0541......................  Safety Zones................  Ocean City, NJ..............       7/22/2017
USCG-2017-0669......................  Safety Zones................  Liberty Island, NY..........       7/23/2017
USCG-2017-0744......................  Safety Zones................  Winona, MN..................       7/26/2017
USCG-2017-0334......................  Special Local Regulations...  Tacoma, WA..................       7/29/2017
USCG-2017-0736......................  Special Local Regulations...  Chequamegon Bay, WI.........       7/31/2017
USCG-2017-0709......................  Safety Zones................  Cincinnati, OH..............        8/3/2017
USCG-2017-0771......................  Safety Zones................  Gulport, MS.................        8/4/2017
USCG-2017-0729......................  Special Local Regulations...  Cincinnati, OH..............        8/5/2017
USCG-2017-0739......................  Safety Zones................  Catoosa, OK.................        8/5/2017
USCG-2017-0756......................  Safety Zones................  Incline Village, NV.........        8/6/2017
USCG-2017-0814......................  Safety Zones................  Port Long Island............       8/10/2017
USCG-2017-0535......................  Safety Zones................  Cincinnati, Ohio............       8/11/2017
USCG-2017-0780......................  Safety Zones................  Seattle, WA.................       8/16/2017
USCG-2016-0507......................  Safety Zones................  Oahu, HI....................       8/16/2017
USCG-2017-0738......................  Safety Zones................  Township, MI................       8/17/2017
USCG-2017-0757......................  Safety Zones................  Rochester, PA...............       8/18/2017
USCG-2017-0802......................  Special Local Regulations...  Charleston, WV..............       8/19/2017
USCG-2017-0746......................  Safety Zones................  Cincinnati, Ohio............       8/22/2017
USCG-2017-0776......................  Safety Zones................  San Francisco Bay...........       8/23/2017
USCG-2017-0735......................  Safety Zones................  San Francisco, CA...........       8/27/2017
USCG-2017-0565......................  Safety Zones................  Baton Rouge, LA.............        9/2/2017
USCG-2017-0805......................  Safety Zones................  Point Pleasant, WV..........        9/2/2017
USCG-2017-0833......................  Special Local Regulations...  Detroit, MI.................        9/3/2017
USCG-2017-0774......................  Special Local Regulations...  Louisville, KY..............        9/4/2017
USCG-2017-0835......................  Safety Zones................  Detroit, MI.................        9/7/2017
USCG-2017-0800......................  Drawbridges.................  San Francisco, CA...........        9/7/2017
USCG-2017-0588......................  Safety Zones................  Chicago, IL.................        9/8/2017
USCG-2017-0845......................  Safety Zones................  Clifton, TN.................        9/9/2017
USCG-2017-0782......................  Safety Zones................  Chicago, IL.................        9/9/2017
USCG-2017-0859......................  Security Zones..............  Grosse Point Park, MI.......        9/9/2017
USCG-2017-0836......................  Special Local Regulations...  Keweenaw Waterway, MI.......        9/9/2017
USCG-2017-0813......................  Safety Zones................  Nashville, TN...............       9/10/2017
USCG-2017-0683......................  Safety Zones................  Deep Water Bay, Cypress            9/11/2017
                                                                     Island.
USCG-2017-0876......................  Drawbridges.................  Niantic, CT.................       9/14/2017
USCG-2017-0797......................  Safety Zones................  Port Arthur, TX.............       9/14/2017
USCG-2017-0853......................  Safety Zones................  New Bern, NC................       9/15/2017
USCG-2017-0906......................  Regulated Navigation Areas..  Atlantic Ocean, FL..........       9/16/2017
USCG-2017-0624......................  Security Zones..............  Beaumont, TX................       9/18/2017
USCG-2017-0893......................  Safety Zones................  Apra Outer Harbor, GU.......       9/18/2017
USCG-2017-0693......................  Special Local Regulations...  Nashville, TN...............       9/23/2017
USCG-2017-0895......................  Special Local Regulations...  Monroe, LA..................       9/23/2017
USCG-2017-0888......................  Special Local Regulations...  Suisun Bay, Concord, CA.....       9/25/2017
USCG-2017-0787......................  Safety Zones................  Chicago, IL.................       9/26/2017
USCG-2017-0892......................  Safety Zones................  Philadelphia, PA............       9/29/2017
USCG-2017-0652......................  Special Local Regulations...  Clearwater Beach, FL........       9/30/2017
USCG-2017-0197......................  Safety Zones................  Chicago, IL.................       9/30/2017
USCG-2017-0698......................  Special Local Regulations...  Florence, AL................       9/30/2017
USCG-2017-0940......................  Security Zones (Part 165)...  Jersey City, NJ.............       9/30/2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Katia Kroutil,
Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-02096 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P