[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29358-29359]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11508]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0183, FRL-9911-09-Region-10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the February 14, 2012, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal from Idaho demonstrating that the
SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for
lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that each state, after
a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that
it meets the infrastructure requirements necessary to implement the new
or revised NAAQS. The EPA finds that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0183. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA specifies the general requirements for
states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS and the EPA's
actions regarding approval of those SIPs. On February 14, 2012, Idaho
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA demonstrating that the SIP meets
the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. On
March 26, 2014, we proposed approval of Idaho's February 14, 2012,
submittal (79 FR 16722). An explanation of the CAA requirements and
implementing regulations that are met by this SIP revision, a detailed
explanation of the revision, and the EPA's reasons for the proposed
action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on March 26,
2014, and will not be restated here (79 FR 16722). The public comment
period for our proposed action ended on April 25, 2014, and we received
no comments.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the February 14, 2012, submittal from Idaho
demonstrating that the SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, we find that
the Idaho SIP meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being taken under section 110 of
the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address,
as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 21, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2014.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.''
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or    State submittal   EPA approval date         Comments
                                 nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                State-wide........       2/14/2012   5/22/2014 [Insert   This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                           page number where   the following CAA
 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.                                                the document        elements:
                                                                       begins].            110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-11508 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78878-78881]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27872]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 246 / Friday, December 23, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1651; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00893-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2021-04-02, which applies to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON
2000EX airplanes. AD 2021-04-02 requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD
2021-04-02, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would
continue to require the actions in AD 2021-04-02 and would require
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 6,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1651; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1651.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1651; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00893-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary
that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-04-02, Amendment 39-21423 (86 FR 10738,
February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-04-02), for certain Dassault Aviation Model
FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2021-04-02 was prompted by an MCAI
originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States
of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2020-0114, dated May 20, 2020
(EASA 2020-0114) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2021-04-02), to correct
an unsafe condition.
    AD 2021-04-02 requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate

new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD
2021-04-02 to address reduced structural integrity of the airplane. AD
2021-04-02 specifies that accomplishing the revision required by
paragraph (g) or (i) of that AD terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010), for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes.

Actions Since AD 2021-04-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-04-02, EASA superseded AD 2020-0114
and issued EASA AD 2022-0136, dated July 6, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0136)
(referred to after this as the MCAI), for all Dassault Aviation Model
FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations have been developed.
    Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued after January 15, 2022, must
comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the
approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet
for those airplanes; this AD therefore does not include these airplanes
in the applicability.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1651.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0136. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2020-0114, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of March 30, 2021 (86 FR 10738, February 23, 2021).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain of the requirements of AD
2021-04-02. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are
specified in EASA AD 2022-0136 already described, as proposed for
incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2022-0136 are
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    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 (AMOC) according to
paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to retain the IBR of EASA AD 2020-0114 and incorporate
EASA AD 2022-0136 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD
would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0136 and EASA AD
2020-0114 through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in EASA AD 2020-0114 or EASA AD 2022-0136 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2020-
0114 or EASA AD 2022-0136. Service information required by EASA AD
2020-0114 and EASA AD 2022-0136 for compliance will be available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1651
after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
the AMOCs paragraph under ``Additional AD Provisions.'' This new format
includes a ``New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals''
paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may
still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 245 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2021-04-02 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past,

the agency has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-04-02, Amendment 39-21423
(86 FR 10738, February 23, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2022-1651; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00893-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by February 6, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2021-04-02, Amendment 39-21423 (86 FR
10738, February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-04-02).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010) (AD 2010-26-05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before January 15, 2022.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2021-04-02, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before February 15, 2020, except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required
actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with,
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0114, dated May
20, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0114). Accomplishing the revision of the
existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j)
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0114, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(j) of AD 2021-04-02, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0114 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0114 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the ``limitations, tasks and
associated thresholds and intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2020-0114 within 90 days after March 30, 2021 (the effective
date of AD 2021-04-02).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0114 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0114, or
within 90 days after the March 30, 2021 (the effective date of AD
2021-04-02), whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2020-0114 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0114 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Provision: No Alternative Actions or Intervals, With a New
Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2021-04-02, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2020-0114.

(j) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0136, dated July 6, 2022 (EASA AD
2022-0136). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance
or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0136

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0136 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0136 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0136 is at the applicable
``limitation'' and ``associated thresholds'' as

incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-
0136, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0136 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0136 does not apply
to this AD.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), and intervals are allowed unless they are approved as
specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of
EASA AD 2022-0136.

(m) Terminating Action for Certain Actions in AD 2010-26-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (j) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes only.

(n) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (o) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(o) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
206-231-3226; email [email protected].

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 27, 2023.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0136,
dated July 6, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 30, 2021 (86 FR 10738, February 23, 2021).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0114,
dated May 20, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA ADs 2020-0114 and 2022-0136, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find these
EASA ADs on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 19, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2022-27872 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


For thermal control devices, EPA needs to add the pilot and purge gas flow rate as a data element in Table 2. General Control Device Information. Since the pilot and purge, if utilized, is natural gas (methane) and results in more waste of natural gas (methane) and creation of CO2 and NOX emissions, the pilot and purge flow rate will be needed to evaluate whether there is a benefit associated with the thermal control, or more harm caused.
EPA has amended Table 2 to request pilot and purge gas flow rate.
-0061
EPA should include a new column in Table 2. General Control Device Information identifying the source of waste gas fed to the flare. Flares must be designed for the waste gas being burned and not all waste gas sources are compatible with an existing flare.
EPA has amended each tab in the ICR to allow equipment to be linked to a control device listed in the ControlDevice Tab.
-0061
EPA should request an `Estimated Volume of Waste gas fed to the control device in 2015' instead of the `Typical NG Flow to Device (scf/hr)' in Table 2. General Control Device Information. Waste gas fed to control devices is not typically measured. The flow is typically inconsistent and turbulent making measurement difficult, if not impossible. It is also not clear whether EPA wants the waste gas, the pilot and purge gas or all gas in this question. In combination with the "fraction of time" column, it is unclear what period of time the flowrate should be given. The volume of waste gas changes from year to year, primarily in proportion to liquid production volumes (this assumes tank vapors are the primary feed source).
EPA has amended Table 2 to request "Estimated Cumulative Volume Of Waste Gas fed to Device in 2016 (including purge gas) (scf)."
-0061
EPA should ask for `Maximum heat input capacity to the control device (MMBtu/hr)' as an alternative to `Maximum flow capacity for device' in Table 2. General Control Device Information since control devices are typically limited not by the flow but by the heat input they can handle which is dependent upon the flow and heating value of the waste gas. If the `Maximum flow capacity for device' is not available, the `Maximum heat input capacity to device' can be provided.
EPA has amended Table 2 to additionally request "Maximum Heat Input Capacity to the Control Device (MMBtu/hr)."
-0068
Add the following questions to Table 2:
 Typical NG Flow to Device, including pilot gas in flares (scf/hr)
 If control device is a combustion devices, what type of device is it? (open flare, enclosed flare, thermal combustor, open pit flare, other)
 If combustion device is a flare, does it have a continuous pilot or electronic ignition device?
 If control device is a combustion devices, does it have a monitor to ensure a continuous flame?
 Do operators collect continuous data on flow volumes to the flare?
 Does the control device have monitoring to indicate when the device malfunctions or shuts down?
 If the control device has a monitor to ensure continuous operation/ flame, describe the device used.
EPA has amended Table 2 to request "Purge Gas Flow Rate" and "Pilot Gas Flow Rate."

EPA has requested "Type of Ignition Source" for thermal devices.

EPA has requested information on continuous monitoring of control device parameters.

Table 3: Control Device Cost Information

-0054
Costs may not be available in the event of acquired assets. Allow the use of engineering estimates.
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0061
In Table 3. General Control Device Cost Information, EPA should clarify that total installed capital expenditure includes labor costs, engineering costs, or costs associated with necessary pad expansions. The year the control device was installed, the purchase cost of the equipment, and the total capital cost of the control device is not always available. The option should be given to state this information is not available.
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0054
Row 28-45 Column D - Total Capital Installed Cost
 For older equipment, this may not be available. Older equipment would also not provide an accurate cost estimate compared to current costs.
 This question should only apply to certain control devices constructed after a defined date.
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0054
Row 28-45 Column E - Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost ($/yr in 2015)
 A gas value is required to calculate the $/yr per the example. Define gas value ($).
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0068
Add "Administrative cost to size and source the control device ($)" to Table 3.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.

Other/General

-0050, 49
Modify to focus on current control device costs as opposed to both current and historical.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0067
EPA should amend Part 2M (Control Device Tab) to include the additional following question:
:: If an internal thermal combustor/thermal oxidizer or flare is used, what methods are used to check the status of the pilot, keep the pilot burning, and/or reignite the pilot if it goes out? (mark all that apply)
Monitoring Options:
a. Thermocouple
b. Flame Ionization Detector
c. Periodic checks with an IR Camera
d. Alarm that notifies when no flame in the pilot is present
e. Duplicate/redundant pilots
f. Liquid knockout scrubber to prevent quenching of the pilot flame
g. Flare/Combustor is designed to reignite automatically
h. Other (please describe):
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0046
The intro tab instructions state to "complete this sheet only if flares, combustors, vapor recovery units, or other `add-on' control devices are used at the facility." EPA Supporting Statement at 34. This instruction and the "control device type" drop-down menu on the equipment tab for control devices seem to assume that only control devices that control a hydrocarbon stream should be listed.
EPA has amended the Definitions Tab to include "Control Device."
-0046
EPA does not collect any information on the primary driver for installation of controls, which will be important when EPA determines whether and where controls should be required on existing equipment.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0046
The form does not accurately account for acid gas flares, which may have assist gas because the form does not distinguish between waste gas and the total combusted gas (which includes waste gas and assist gas).
EPA has amended the ICR to include a definition for "Waste Gas."
-0046
Several of the columns use the term "NG stream," but more clarity is required. It is not clear, for example, whether an acid gas stream be reported in these columns. If so, EPA should clarify this, as respondents might not consider the acid gas stream to be an "NG stream."
EPA has amended the ControlDevice Tab to specify "waste gas" rather than NG.
-0046
EPA should ask whether there is a waste gas meter or continuous parameter monitoring, and if so, what types of parameters are monitored. Those would be essential facts to understanding whether further control would be required.
EPA appreciates the comment and will implement as suggested.
-0049
EPA should seek installation cost estimates to better understand the full cost of new emission control requirements.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0049
Cost data cannot always be extrapolated from one basin to another. Costs for installation of the same control device may be significantly more in remote areas than in basins closer to metropolitan areas due to differences in the availability, or lack of availability, of manpower and equipment, and additional transportation or travel charges.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0049
EPA should also be aware that economic impacts are often considered on a well-by-well basis.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0049
Asset sales and trades will complicate the collection of control device cost data. Without proper context around whether a control device was added as a retrofit, repurposed from another facility, or part of new construction, and the approximate date of installation, it is difficult to make any useful conclusions about control cost data.
EPA has amended Table 3 to request "Was Control Device Installation Part of New Construction?"
-0049
Tab contains a request for the, "Fraction of time control device is operated while NG flow is present," which is an inappropriate request as operators are not required to continuously monitor the flow of natural gas to a control device in all areas. EPA should revise the request to "Fraction of time control device is operated and the well is producing."
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.

Part 2  -  General/Other/Missing Sources

-0061
EPA should allow for an operator to voluntarily report additional information.
EPA will include the ability upload additional data (process simulations, supplemental data, etc.) in e-GGRT.
-0050, 49, 48
Modify "Applicable Environmental Regulations" to clarify that EPA is requesting applicable state rules which apply only to air regulations. EPA should also include an option to write in other applicable requirements such as Tribal Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) regulations or requirements from a federal Consent Decree. It is inappropriate for EPA to use this effort to gather information on, for example, noise ordinances, road traffic requirements, or stormwater permitting.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0054
The current format includes "applicable regulations" checklists in most of the individual source-specific forms. This inquiry is redundant, and instead should include a single checklist in the "Facilities" worksheet. This simplifies the request, eliminates redundancies, and provides a single point of reference regarding facility regulatory applicability.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0054
EPA should develop descriptions for many of the data fields/survey questions to improve clarity, provide context, etc.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0022
Where emissions data are collected, should also collect information on the test methods used.
EPA appreciates the comment and will implement as suggested.

Other/General

CBI Protection

-0036, 41, 70, 65, 46, 49, 52, 59
EPA should allow operators to request CBI protection for any/all aspects of the ICR (Part 1 and Part 2).
 The nature of the collection of all of this data in one location and the fact that not all business competitors in this industry segment will be required to provide this information creates a unique situation that EPA can and should address for this ICR.
 Any information that can be gained about available capacity in a gas processing plant or a pipeline, or about the quality of gas treated or transported, could place competitors at an advantage or a corresponding disadvantage when negotiating contracts.
 EPA should appreciate the competitive nature of the natural gas industry and maintain confidentiality of company- and facility-identifying information in this ICR process.
 EPA's actions in effect could create winners (companies who will enjoy access to a comprehensive data set on competitors while revealing no information themselves) and losers (companies required to disclose data).
 Company- and facility-identification data, which we urge EPA to keep confidential, does not constitute emission data. Congress excluded "emission data" from confidentiality protection under Clean Air Act Section 114(c) but did not define the term.
 In their current state, the proposed ICR and EPA's attendant "not-CBI" designations could have the unintended consequence of presenting serious national security concerns because the ICR would require companies to provide substantial amounts of information - wrapped up in a single package easily accessible to members of the public and including specific information on the name, address, and geographic coordinates of the facility to which the data pertains - regarding facilities that are part of the critical infrastructure of the United States as designated by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS").
 The data that EPA is currently proposing to leave as unprotected information is the same sort of information that competitors are generally prohibited from sharing under the Sherman Act.
See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0058
Company data subject to non-disclosure agreement in academic studies should be protected as Confidential Business Information (CBI).
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0052
Specific CBI data concerns:
 General Category: Facility; Data Element; Number of months the facility operated in 2015:
 The number of months the facility operated in a given year, i.e. uptime / downtime, is a data element that could bear on the reliability of the pipeline or midstream operator - or it could be unfairly portrayed by a competitor as an indicator of reliability.
 General Category: Tanks Separators: Data Element: Reid vapor pressure of feed material (psig):
 Public disclosure of data regarding the quality or other specific aspects of the product could lead a company to target the better quality gas sources on a competitor's system for acquisition, leaving that competitor to deal with greater quantities of off-specification gas and higher transaction costs.
 General Category: Tanks Separators: Data Elements; Specific gravity of feed material (relative to water at 4° C); Gas Liquid Ratio (scf/bbl):
 The public disclosure of data regarding overall product quality could work to the disadvantage of the disclosing company because it would allow companies to target the better quality gas sources on competitors' systems for acquisition, once again leaving the competitor to deal with greater quantities of off-specification gas and higher transaction costs.
 General Category: AGRU\a Elements: H2S concentration in feed gas (% by volh CO2 concentration in feed gas (% by vol): H2S concentration in treated gas (% by vol): CO2 concentration in treatedsas (% by vol):
 Same as points 2 and 3 above.
 5. General Category; Dehvd: Data Elements; H2O concentration in feed sas (% by volh CO2 concentration in feed sas (% by vol); CH4 concentration in feed sas (% by vol); H2O concentration in treated sas (% by vol): CO2 concentration in treated sas (% by vol): CH4 concentration in treated sas (% by vol):
 Same as points 2 and 3 above.
 General Category: Corny; Data Elements: If no, please provide the total time the compressor was in operating-mode in RY2015. (hours); If no, please provide the total time the compressor was in standby-pressurized-mode in RY2015. (hours); If no, please provide the total time the compressor was in not-operating-depressurized-mode in RY2015. (hours):
 Data elements that relate to runtime or downtime provide a glimpse into the facility's reliability, or they can be mischaracterized as demonstrating lack of reliability when in actuality any downtime was caused by other factors not bearing upon reliability.
 General Category: Control Device; Data Element: Net Heating Value of NG Stream (btu/scf):
 Same as points 2 and 3 above.
 General Category: Control Device; Data Elements: Purchased Equipment Costs ($}; Total Capital Installed ($h Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost ($/yr in 2015:
 Companies strive to keep cost data private because companies in a competitive industry do not want the competition to gain a glimpse into their cost structure. Cost data can be used in negotiations with potential customers, who can argue that a facility with lower costs should provide services at a lower price. Competitors seeking a company's business can paint the same picture to potential customers in order to take business away. Public disclosure of cost data would be used against the disclosing company by customers and competitors.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0070
To the extent that some of the material submitted pursuant to the ICR may contain trade secrets, geological and geophysical data on wells, or information that is otherwise confidential or privileged, and therefore exempt from public disclosure under FOIA, EPA should clearly establish procedures in the ICR on how to submit these materials.

 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0070
EPA should make further accommodation for companies and facilities whose ICR-responsive data may be the subject of discovery in relation to pending civil litigation or unrelated enforcement action. This is because some of this data may not easily fit into any of the FOIA exemptions that would withhold its disclosure to the public. In some cases, the data itself may be actual subject of the litigation and the issue of its accuracy or completeness may not be resolved until the litigation itself is resolved.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0046, 52
GPA Midstream requests full CIPSEA protection for the information requested by the ICR.  At a minimum, EPA must take the "CIPSEA Pledge" to protect the identity of the company and facility responding to the ICR. For Data That Are Not Protected From Disclosure Under CIPSEA, the Scope of Data Elements Protected as Confidential Business Information Should be Expanded.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0052
Either the entirety of the identity of the responding company and the facility that is the subject of the ICR should be protected so that no connection can be made between the data and the company or facility at issue, or if such company or facility identifier information is not protected from disclosure as CBI, then EPA should expand additional data elements as CBI to provide additional protections to the responding company's competitive position.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.
-0052
EPA should take a fresh look at CBI issues as they are presented within the particular context of the ICR, rather than simply rely upon the conclusions reached in connection with the GHGRP. The GHGRP is conducted on an industry-wide basis, which is not the case for the ICR questionnaires. Also, information collected under Subpart W is on an aggregate basis.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all CBI-related comments.

e-GGRT

-0061, 27, 42, 54, 46
Commenters expressed general concern about using the e-GGRT system for responding to the ICR.
 EPA should perform full scale testing of the submittal process to ensure the system is working adequately
 Ensure that e-GGRT can support the number of users that will be using e-GGRT at around the same timeframe as GHG reporting under the GHGRP.
 Allow other options for ICR submittals instead or in addition to the use of e-GGRT
 EPA must provide a "sandbox testing" time of at least 60 days for e-GGRT. Data collection interpretations may be made during the programming of e-GGRT which conflict with EPA's written requirement or are otherwise incorrect. The public will need an opportunity to review e-GGRT to ensure it aligns exactly with the final Excel data collection templates for the ICR.
EPA has conducted full scale testing of the submittal process to ensure that the e-GGRT system is working as it should.
-0031
EPA should establish a help desk email/line that will respond timely to questions and report submittal problems.
EPA will establish a help desk email/line for respondents of the ICR.
-0046
Simplify e-GGRT Reporting Requirements.  EPA should review the facility registration process to see how it can be streamlined before asking industry to register thousands of facilities.
EPA has optimized the e-GGRT system to ease the registration process for facilities.

Legal

-0068
EPA has ample authority under Section 114 of the CAA to issue a broad and detailed ICR.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0020, 36, 41, 63, 46, 49, 52
Commenters suggested that EPA should not proceed with the ICR.
 It does not provide the agency with information of practical utility and does not support EPA's function.
 Additional costs of retrofitting pursuant to a new rule reduce the amount of money operators have to drill new wells which deprives States of additional revenue.
 EPA should engage production companies to develop a new survey which captures the emission data EPA is seeking and does not overburden respondents.
 EPA is not authorized under the CAA to promulgate national standards of performance for existing oil and gas emission sources because these existing sources are in categories that are currently regulated under Section 112 of the CAA.  The EPA does not have the authority to proceed with an ICR that will impose added burden on a segment of the industry that is already regulated.  The promulgation of this ICR is neither in the spirit of nor in legal step with the CAA.
 There is no need for a separate and unique regulatory process beyond that already established through the state and local governments under the authority of the CAA.
 Methane does not appear to be, and should not be considered, a factor in the global climate change problem as a greenhouse gas (GHG). Therefore, it is not in the best interests of the American economy or the American people to create a special rule to control a gas that has not been considered a priority pollutant in the past and has just recently become an issue as a GHG.
 EPA is not authorized to regulate methane emissions from existing oil and natural gas facilities under Section 111(d).
 EPA is not authorized to regulate existing oil and natural gas facilities under Section 111(d), because the oil and gas sector is already a regulated "source category" under Section 112 through regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HH (regulating oil and natural gas production facilities) and Subpart HHH (regulating natural gas transmission and storage facilities).
 EPA has neglected to do a proper endangerment finding on methane in general and from the oil and natural gas industry. A full, honest endangerment finding would likely reveal that the small amount of methane emissions from the wellhead is more than offset by the significant greenhouse gas reductions delivered by natural gas at the consumer side and especially in the power sector.
 At a minimum, EPA should delay issuance of the ICR, and the Section 111 (d) rulemaking process, until the Supreme Court has ruled on the Section 112 Exclusion issue.
 A valid Section 111(b) NSPS for methane emissions must be in place before EPA may promulgate an ESPS for methane emissions under Section 111(d), but a valid 111(b) NSPS  does not exist in this case.
 EPA failed to make the requisite finding to expand the oil and gas source category.  EPA failed to make the requisite endangerment and cause-or-contribute findings for the single GHG, methane, as emitted by stationary oil and gas sources.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0060 (dup 62), 41, 51, 46, 59
Numerous data requests in the ICR are problematic from a legal aspect per the requirements in the Paperwork Reduction Act, including:
 Limited or no practical utility;
 Duplicative to other agency or state data requests;
 And/or would place an undue cost and administrative burden.
This was not accounted for in EPA's estimates on respondents in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0046
EPA should make additional changes to the ICR to ensure the practical utility of the information requested as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
 Acid gas removal units ("AGRUs") are included in the ICR, however they are not a significant source of methane or VOC emissions and have been subject to an NSPS since January 20, 1984 under Subpart LLL. GPA Midstream questions the practical utility of having industry spend time and capital to collect this information when the source has been recently evaluated for emissions under NSPS Subpart OOOOa and when there will be very few existing AGRUs.
 Dehydration units are not included in NSPS Subpart OOOOa; existing dehydration units are already regulated directly under NESHAP Subpart HH/HHH. GPA Midstream questions the utility of industry spending time and capital providing this information to EPA.
 Control devices on gathering and processing facilities are commonly used to control streams from multiple emission sources, however the control device tab does not connect the control device with the specific sources they are controlling.
 The proposed deadline for responding to Part 2 of the ICR will lead to EPA receiving outdated information.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0029, 40, 41, 51, 59
Several requested items do not apply to the stated mission of the ICR.  Delete the following sections that do not apply to the stated mission of the ICR:
 Attachment 2G Part 1
 Attachment 2H
 Attachment 2I Parts 2 and 4
 Attachment 2J Part 2
 All references to: produced water management, ownership of land, well depth and length, shut in pressure, casing or tubing diameter, and Reid Vapor Pressure of feed material.
 Only 15 of 580 requested items are applicable in Attachment 2D
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0037, 39, 43, 68
Consistent with section 114 of the Clean Air Act, EPA should make data broadly publicly available.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0034
EPA should design the ICR to be policy-neutral. The current ICR appears to be narrowly crafted to provide answers to a pre-determined outcome of regulating existing sources under §111(d) that mirrors the recently finalized NSPS OOOOa regulations. EPA must be open to all policy tools available to reduce methane emissions (i.e. Gas STAR, Methane Challenge, etc).
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0040, 48
The following information is outside of EPA's regulatory authority under CAA and should be eliminated:
 Management of water
 Land ownership
 Well depth
 Well length
 Shut-in pressure
 Casing diameter
 Tubing diameter
 Reid Vapor pressure of feed materials
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0070
EPA should assure that information submitted pursuant to the ICR will be used only for standard setting or rulemaking by the Agency pursuant to Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA").
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0046
EPA is not authorized to issue emission guidelines for methane from existing oil and natural gas facilities under 111(d), because before EPA may issue guidelines to the States under Section 111(d) for existing oil and natural gas facilities, the agency first must properly issue new source performance standards for the oil and natural gas source category under Section 111(b).
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0046
The language of Section 111 makes plain that it is the States that are authorized to establish standards of performance under Section 111(d).
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0046
If EPA proceeds to propose a final ICR, EPA should be clear in expressing that the ICR would not be used to develop standards of performance under 111(d) that are more stringent than final standards of performance for new sources under Section 111(b).
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.
-0048
Under Section 111, EPA has the authority to create and use subcategorization to focus regulations that are suited to appropriate elements of the industry. EPA needs to utilize this authority in the context of existing source regulation under Section 111(d) because of the significant diversity of the American oil and natural gas production industry.
 See "Summary of Comments and Responses" memo for responses to all legal-related comments.

General Support/Clarification

-0033, 19, 24, 25, 32, 37, 39, 43, 47, 55, 56, 69
Commenters provided general support for EPA's methane efforts/ICR.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0060 (dup 62), 61
Commenters requested general clarification of instructions for Part 1 and Part 2.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0060 (dup 62)
General request for clarification and further detail in Part 1 and Part 2 definitions
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0045
Commenter expressed general concern about the impact of regulations on U.S. industry.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.

Edits/Deletes/Additions

-0027, 28, 36, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58, 54, 49, 48
EPA should integrate information already available through other reporting programs (ex. GHGRP, state and federal air permits, etc.) and use the ICR to collect supplemental information. In some cases, existing data should be sufficient.

EPA indicates that data available from the
GHGRP, including 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart W data, will not be duplicated in ICR Supporting Statement.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0061, 49
Many of the terms defined are different between Part 1 and Part 2. Differences in definitions should be minimized and if they are different; the definitions should be compatible and the differences explained with any boundaries defined amongst industry segments.
EPA has reviewed Part 1 and Part 2 definitions to ensure continuity of definitions throughout the ICR.
-0058, 54
Definitions should be consistent with Methane NSPS and GHGRP. Because GHGRP information will be a key resource in completing the ICR, GHGRP definitions should be used unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. If there is not a GHGRP definition, but Subpart OOOO(a) provides a definition, that definition should be used.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0020
Remove Part 2 of the ICR, or, if not, select a representative sample of marginal well operators to be included in the distribution of the survey
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0028, 51, 48
EPA needs to obtain information that reflects varying emissions throughout the year.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0020
Request cost data for emission reduction technologies and retrofits
EPA has requested cost data from emission reduction technologies and retrofits in the ControlDevice Tab in Part 2 of the ICR.
-0020
Request only information which is contained within an operator's current records
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0037, 39, 43, 56
EPA should gather data on more sources (i.e. sources that do not already have existing standards).  EPA should add the following sources:
 Leaks from all aboveground facilities, including "city gates" and other facilities in the distribution segment of the natural gas industry.
 Pneumatic controllers and pumps of all types, including intermittent-bleed controllers, "low-bleed" pneumatic controllers, and gas-assist glycol dehydrator pumps.
 Tanks of all types, including tanks that store oil, condensate, or produced water, at all sites and including tanks that have lower expected emissions.
 Reciprocating compressors at all sites, including well pads.
 Centrifugal compressors at all sites, including well pads.
 Offshore oil and gas production platforms.
 Liquids unloading operations from vertical and horizontal wells.
 Blowdown events from wells or other equipment.
 Venting and flaring of associated gas from oil wells.
 Open impoundments for handling produced water, and disposal facilities for produced water utilizing evaporation and/or percolation.
 Compressor engine exhaust, where methane is likely present from incomplete combustion of fuel gas.
 Acid gas removal units and dehydrators throughout the sector.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0034
Add the following questions:
1) What are the total voluntary reductions achieved by companies through EPA Gas STAR, EPA Methane Challenge and other voluntary programs? What voluntary reductions have been achieved by companies since 2012?
2) What fraction of a company's assets are included in the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)?
3) Does the company have a corporate or asset level methane monitoring program? What is the monitoring frequency of such programs?
4) Considering advances in methane emissions monitoring, including continuous emissions monitoring, has the company applied any advanced monitoring technologies (beyond approved methods in NSPS OOOOs)?
5) Has the company developed corporate-wide or large-scale directed inspection and maintenance (DI&M) or predictive analytical that can aid in identification and minimization of methane emissions?
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0036
All information requests within the ICR which are has plant or transmission based be removed from those surveys that are intended to be submitted to production companies.  Examples include:
 Feed Material Composition  -  Paragraph 4 of Attachment 2F
 Paragraph 5 of Attachment 2F  -  Number of hours a dump valve was "stuck" in 2015.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0036
Add request for installation cost estimates to better understand the full cost of new emission control requirements within the ICR.
EPA has requested cost data from emission reduction technologies and retrofits in the ControlDevice Tab in Part 2 of the ICR.
-0044, 54
EPA should adopt OOOOa/OOOO/Subpart W applicability language for the final ICR.  The survey adds unnecessary complexity by failing to use definitions, equipment categories, etc., that are already available or established in other regulations.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0031, 42, 54, 46
EPA should clarify how sources should respond to questions if company records are not available (Should cells be left blank or should "not available" be entered?  Will there be spaces for comments allowed?). Divestitures and acquisitions can raise significant challenges regarding access to data. EPA should acknowledge that there may be instances where respondents cannot answer survey questions because historical information is unavailable.
Tabs that require a "not available" or "not applicable" response option are the following:
 Control Device Equipment tab where the respondent is asked to provide the year a control device is installed, purchased equipment costs and total capital installed cost. Depending on the age of the facility, the owner or operator will not have this information. This will be especially true if the facility has been a part of any divestiture or acquisition, as is common in the oil and gas industry.
 Facility Tab, Sub-Sections 1 and 2, "Contact Phone 2" and "Contact Email 2" should be allowed be left blank.
 Tanks Separator Tab, Sub-Section 5, Hours dump valve stuck in 2015? Gathering and boosting facilities were not required to track this in 2015 and the data will not be available for many facilities.
 Pneumatics Tab, Sub-Section 3, How many controllers were found malfunctioning in the past year? Gathering and boosting facilities were not required to track this information and therefore may not have the requested data available for many facilities.
 Equipment Leaks Tab, Sub-Sections 2, Total number of components monitored for Leaks during the most recent monitoring survey? There are state programs that require IR camera monitoring, but do not require the facility to keep an actual component count.
 Equipment Leak Tab, Sub-Section 4, Measurement Cost. Gathering and boosting facilities were not required to track this information and therefore may not have the requested data available for many facilities.
 Control Device Tab, Sub-Section 3, Natural Gas Consumption Rate." Sub-Section 2, "Release height (ft)" and "Stack diameter (ft)"; these are Not Applicable for Vapor Recovery Units.
 Blowdowns Tab, Source-specific information sheet for equipment/pipeline blowdowns. Complete form based on available information for 2015. If your facility is first required to track this information in 2016, you may estimate 2015 blowdown events/emissions as twice the events/emissions determined in January through June 2016. EPA does not consider that the facility may not be required to track blowdowns or may be using BAMM for January  -  June 2016.
Companies should provide best available data when responding to the ICR.
-0058
Eliminate component counts from ICR.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0067
EPA should amend the verification statement with the
following text: I certify that I have read and understand the best practices associated with developing an inventory as described in EPA's ICR and that the statements and information are to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0066
EPA should request findings from inspection reports or other routine maintenance programs, documenting leaks, direct venting of tanks, open thief hatches or valves, and other events linked to emission events.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0066
EPA should request process diagrams of equipment trains, particularly describing the routing of multiple sources to individual control units to evaluate the potential for flow volume to exceed the capacity of control equipment.
EPA will include the ability upload additional data (process simulations, supplemental data, etc.) in e-GGRT.
-0066
EPA should request the compliance status for each compressor station with applicable environmental permits, including state and local, for the past 5 years and a description of the nature of any violations, if relevant to emissions.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0054
The survey should clearly indicate the applicable year upon which the response should be based.
EPA has indicated that companies should provide 2016 data (when applicable).
-0049, 59
"Storage Tank" and "Vessel" are used interchangeably, which could create confusion. Suggest instead using "Tank" for storage equipment (e.g., storage tank) and "Vessel" reserved for process equipment (e.g., separator).
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0054
The reporting tool should be flexible and allow rows, etc., to be added to accommodate facility equipment counts. The draft Part 2 survey is "locked," does not allow the addition of rows (e.g., to include all of the compressors located at a facility), and inter-related tables sometime do not allow the same number of data entries.
EPA has added more rows to the ICR to allow for all necessary data to be reported.
-0046
Several of the equipment tabs have a section where the respondent is required to check applicable regulations.
 For each tab with this section the column header uses the words "well site." That should be changed to "facility" to avoid confusion.
 Each tab with this section also lists 43 CFR Part 3100 Subpart 3179 which is the proposed methane rule for the Bureau of Land Management. Since this rule is proposed and not yet effective, it should be removed from the list.
 A check box should be added for "enforceable permit limits," which would be used by facilities that have enforceable limits or monitoring/recordkeeping requirements under synthetic minor permits.
 On the Dehydrator Unit Equipment tab, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOO and OOOOa are listed as regulations that could apply. Neither regulation has requirements for dehydrator units and should be removed.
 On the Acid Gas Removal Unit Equipment tab, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKK is listed under regulations that could apply. This should be changed to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart LLL which is the rule for sweetening units.
 On the Tanks Separators Equipment tab, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb should be added to the list.
 On the Compressor Equipment tab, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKK should be added to the list.
EPA appreciates the comment and will implement as suggested.

Marginal Wells/Production/Low Emitting Facilities

-0061, 49
Adding controls to reduce or eliminate methane emissions from existing oil and gas production operations is not a "one-size-fits-all" proposition. EPA must consider many direct and indirect factors before developing an accurate cost estimate for installing and operating methane controls.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0028, 35, 51, 57, 48, 49
EPA must understand the economic impact of additional regulations on marginal wells.  EPA must assess the implications of regulations on the remaining useful life of marginal wells.
EPA has requested Production Well Point Costs in Table 1B of the ProdnWell Tab.
-0028, 41, 50, 51, 48
O&G production starts at an initial production rate and then begins to decline as the resource is extracted from its reservoir.  EPA needs to have a thorough understanding of this in order to provide a structure to assure that American O&G resources are developed and maintained.  The ICR should provide the information needed to create this level of understanding.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0057
EPA should revisit the small producer exemption in any further methane rulemaking.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0034
The EPA should exclude low-emitting facilities from the ICR, considering the fact that peer-reviewed science supports the relation of methane emissions to throughput.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0034
EPA should employ the de minimis exception to any of the affected sites/facilities with a potential to emit less than the values derived from the potential uncontrolled rates from the Technical Support Document (TSD)
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0057
Failure to understand this pricing structure and the market challenges facing small producers by
EPA will have a devastating impact on producer's ability to stay in business. EPA fails to understand that most marginal well producers get prices significantly below the posted WTI price. Most marginal operators sales are based off a lower, regional market price, and the products are discounted below the regional price. Often contracts are for as much as $6-10 per barrel below the regional price.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0058
EPA should reduce reporting for low-emitting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.  More than 95% of existing LNG peak shaving storage facilities will be excluded from the source category subject to the NSPS, because they are inside the LDC custody transfer station, and this type of facility (when new or modified) is excluded from the source category subject to the 111(b) NSPS. Due to their inherent operations as well as stringent requirements under federal pipeline safety regulations, greenhouse gas emissions from both LNG peak shaving storage facilities and LNG import/export terminals are already extremely low
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.

Other Comments

-0061, 42, 46, 49, 48
Limit ICR to facilities that are not subject to NSPS OOOO or OOOOa, or other NSPSs (facilities built after September 18, 2015).
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0061, 59
EPA should publish the emission calculation methodologies intended to be used and allow the public time to provide comments on the appropriateness and accuracy of the proposed calculations.
 The data collected in the proposed ICR appears to imply an emission calculation method that is not appropriate for the emission source and pollutant for which it is proposed
 Subpart W emission factors would not be satisfactory for regulatory purposes and urges EPA to define the set of emission calculations it intends on utilizing before surveys are distributed
 EPA should not utilize the Direct Emissions Measurement Data collected with the ICR to estimate emissions, unless they have sufficient data to assure that it is accurate and representative
 Considering the primary variables that impact the emissions from each type of equipment will enable the model plant approach to establish more cost effective boundaries
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0061, 60
EPA should clarify that each owner/operator is only responsible to report for their equipment that is owned and operated at each location as of December 31, 2015.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0023
NC WARN's filed complaint with the EPA (www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-OIG_NCWARN_Complaint_6-8-16.pdf) calls into question several of the studies relied upon by EPA in its assessment of methane leaking and venting from natural gas production/distribution.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0029, 48, 59
Recommended that EPA reach out to the EPA's enforcement group currently working on CAA Section 114 requests to get an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the ICR/amount of time that will be required.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0037, 39, 43
Commenters urge EPA to continue to assess
effective policy-design approaches to minimize emissions from existing sources relying on the
significant information already available and that the administration used to develop previous New
Source Pollution Standards, the BLM rule, and the control techniques guidelines for oil and gas sources in ozone-constrained areas.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0039
EPA should pay specific attention to data collection relevant for evaluating the impact of oil and gas operations in communities already overburdened with pollution.  EPA should implement all elements of its "Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action."
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0034
EPA should carefully evaluate emission control experiences and cost-estimates to account for regional variations. Any cost data received by the operators must be analyzed carefully and we highly recommend any average cost-estimates must be evaluated on a regional basis and must be weighted or normalized in an appropriate manner.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0034
ONE Future had commissioned ICF International (ICF) to conduct an analysis of the marginal abatement cost (MAC) of various methane emission abatement technologies and work practices for the natural gas industry. The study was released in June 2016 and can be found at http://www.onefuture.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ONE-Future-MAC-Final-6-1.pdf. This analysis represents the most updated average cost estimates for various emission control technologies and work-practices.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0040
Reduce the scope of the proposed ICR by  performing it in three parts as follows:
a. ICR 1 should consist of Attachment lA name, address, contact, number of facilities, and number of producing wells, and should be sent to all 22,500 operators. No less than 60-120 days should be allowed for operators to complete and return the survey.
b. ICR 2 should consist of Attachment lA parts 1-3 and should be sent to a statistically representative number of operators based upon an evaluation of ICR
1. No less than 180 days should be allowed for operators to complete and return the survey.
c. ICR 3 should consist of Attachment 20; Attachment 2E parts 3 and 4; Attachment 2F parts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; Attachment 2G, Attachment 21, Attachment 2J, Attachment 2K, Attachment 2L, and Attachment 2M and should be sent to a statistically representative number of operators based upon an evaluation of ICR 2. No less than 180 days should be allowed for operators to complete and return the survey.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0041, 51
States should be allowed to decide what additional emission control measures should be required, if any.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0041, 50, 51
The draft ICR and potential future regulation at existing sources are unlikely to result in any reduction in emissions to the atmosphere because the potential emissions at these sources are in decline or nonexistent. Cost of implementation outweighs the emission benefits.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0047
EPA should collect information on operations known to contribute to emissions such as, but not limited to, inadequately-sized control equipment and direct venting of tanks through open thief hatches.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0047, 69
EPA should collect both methane and additional air toxics data together in the ICR. It would be more efficient and timely to seek this information now to inform regulatory action, and to do so promptly and expeditiously, rather than delaying air toxics data collection and the protections for public health that such data will enable.
EPA has amended the ICR to request information on additional air toxics, when applicable.
-0067
Require all industry respondents to develop and submit a Quality Assurance Plan that incorporates certain best practices with their ICR responses.  EPA must require operators to use best practices to conduct counts of process and pollution control equipment in response to Part 1 and 2 EPA's ICR. Recommended Best Practices:
 Designate a lead individual who is responsible for completing the ICR on behalf of the company and who is accountable for the accuracy of the responses.
 Designate key personnel, other than the lead individual, who will gather the requested information. These individuals should have knowledge of the processes, the equipment and their respective locations.
 Develop a written plan that describes where the counting will take place, for example: at the production sites, at field offices, and/or at central locations that have access to detailed records. Also specify when the counting should start and when it needs to be completed. Finally, indicate how the counting will be done (e.g., by review of company equipment lists, piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), original purchase orders or equipment design documents, field counts, etc.).
 Where actual field counts are not performed, review the accuracy of responses using one or more of the following company records: Company asset lists; Original and/or modified construction specification documents; Purchase orders for equipment or other purchasing documentation; Equipment lists maintained for leak detection and repair programs or maintenance/turn-around planning.
 Review the most up-to-date P&IDs. This review is an addition to the review of other company records described above and any field counts performed by the operator.
 Perform field counts at a representative sample of facilities to identify any equipment that may have been missed or decommissioned and to identify any systemic problems with counts derived through other methods.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0064
The EPA should divulge the number of facilities that exist within a basin for each operator and how that number was derived. The number of facilities by operator should be then divided by industry segment. That data should be distributed for public review and comment.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0046, 52
EPA Should Rescind Part 98, Subpart W.  In light of its inadequacy in achieving its original purpose, GPA Midstream recommends EPA amend its request to OMB to renew the GHGRP to remove Subpart W. (EPA ICR No. 2300.17, OMB Control No. 2060-0629). In the alternative, EPA should at least revise this ICR to conform with the scope of data previously collected through the GHGRP. If a facility has already submitted data through the GHGRP for 2015 (processing plants under Subpart W), EPA should not be requiring additional data collection beyond the already burdensome and expansive GHGRP.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0046
EPA should include a separate document either with the ICR, or in the docket, that explains the expected scope of the response for the questionnaire.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0049
EPA should include data requests that help it determine not just the emissions from a particular source, but also the cost of controls.
EPA has requested cost data from emission reduction technologies and retrofits in the ControlDevice Tab in Part 2 of the ICR.
-0049
Using the information gathered through the ICR and the Emerging Technology Request for Information, EPA could develop engineering scenarios and further outline its proposed control methods, while giving industry and other stakeholders the opportunity to evaluate the technical feasibility of EPA's approach.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0049
Operators who have received Clean Air Act Section 114 requests for information on facility operations and emissions data in North Dakota and elsewhere should be exempted from Part II of the ICR.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.
-0026
It appears that EPA policy is being shaped by research organized by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF Fact Sheet, undated) as well as by data from the EPA Subpart W Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR).  However, both of these programs may have under reported methane emissions due to critical and well documented measurement problems.
EPA has considered and evaluated the impacts of this comment and has decided not to pursue any further action.