IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your OEI Desk Officer. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA/ Office of Water/ Office of Science and Technology 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2040  0213 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Industry Detailed Questionnaire: Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structures 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): EPA ICR # 1838.02 9. Keywords: Clean Water Act S, ection 316( b), cooling water intake structures, data collection, detailed questionnaire 10. Abstract: U. S. EPA is currently developing regulations under Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. Section 1326( b). Responses to this Industry Detailed Questionnaire will help EPA better characterize the design, location, construction, and operation of cooling water intake structures at industrial facilities throughout the U. S. The baseline data will help EPA frame regulatory options and define further research needs regarding the relationship of cooling water intake structures, intake technologies, and environmental impacts. EPA will use the economic information to assess facility level and firm level impacts of complying with the proposed regulations on cooling water intake structures and to carry out required economic analyses . EPA has revised the original questionnaires and intends to collect information from both seafood processing vessels and offshore and coastal oil & gas extraction facilities; industries identified during Phase I rulemaking effort and therefore were not surveyed in the original ICR. EPA also intends to follow up with 80 respondents surveyed in the original ICR.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 281 b. Total annual responses 281 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 7,021 d. Current OMB inventory 128,736 e. Difference  121,715 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  121,715 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 1 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 1 d. Current OMB inventory $ 14 e. Difference $ 13 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $ 13 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8.

Other ( describe) one time submission 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jennifer Chan Phone: 202 566 1078 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26121-26124]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3988; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-005-AD;
Amendment 39-18491; AD 2016-08-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-17-51 for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. AD 2014-17-51
required inspecting the inboard flap fasteners of the hinge-box forward
fitting at Wing Station (WS) 76.50 and WS 127.25 to determine the
orientation and condition of the fasteners, as applicable, and
replacement or repetitive inspections of the fasteners if necessary. AD
2014-17-51 also provided for optional terminating action for the
requirements of that AD. This new AD requires accomplishment of the
previously optional terminating action. This AD was prompted by a
determination that that additional action is necessary. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured
fasteners, that could result in premature failure of the fasteners
attaching the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting; failure of the
fasteners could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and the
flap surface, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of
November 12, 2014 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March
6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3988.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3988; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR 64088,
October 28, 2014) (``AD 2014-17-51''). AD 2014-17-51 applied to certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63141) (``the NPRM'').
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-27R1, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-
2B16 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been three in-service reports on 604 Variant
aeroplanes of a fractured fastener head on the inboard flap hinge-
box forward fitting at Wing Station (WS) 76.50, found during a
routine maintenance inspection. Investigation revealed that the
installation of these fasteners on the inboard flap hinge-box
forward fittings at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, does not
conform to the engineering drawings. Incorrect installation may
result in premature failure of the fasteners attaching the inboard
flap hinge-box forward fitting. Failure of the fasteners could lead
to the detachment of the flap hinge box and consequently the
detachment of the flap surface. The loss of a flap surface could
adversely affect the continued safe operation of the aeroplane.
    The original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39 [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0054-0002] [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2014-03-17, Amendment 39-17754 (79 FR 9389,
February 19, 2014)] mandated a detailed visual inspection (DVI) of
each inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting, on both wings, and
rectification as required. Incorrectly oriented fasteners require
repetitive inspections until the terminating action is accomplished.
    After the issuance of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39, there has been
one reported incident on a 604 Variant aeroplane where four
fasteners were found fractured on the same flap hinge-box forward
fitting. The investigation determined that the fasteners were
incorrectly installed.
    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD was issued to reduce
the initial and repetitive inspection intervals previously mandated
in [Canadian] AD CF-2013-39, and to impose replacement of the
incorrectly oriented fasteners within 24 months. The CL-600-1A11, -
2A12 and -2B16 (601-3A/-3R Variant) aeroplanes are addressed through
[Canadian] AD CF-2013-39R1.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to clarify the
requirements for the initial and repetitive inspections.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3988.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Change to Paragraph (k) of This AD

    Paragraph (k) of the NPRM specified to do the replacement on
``both'' wings. However, the replacement only needs to be done on the
affected wing on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found but
none were found to be fractured. We have revised paragraph (k) of this
AD to specify accomplishing the replacement on the affected wings. We

have coordinated this change with TCCA.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletins:
     A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; and
     A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013.
    The service information describes repetitive detailed visual
inspections of each inboard flap fastener of the hinge-box forward
fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, on both wings, and, if necessary,
replacement of the fasteners. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 285 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2014-17-51, and retained in this AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD
2014-17-51 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 58 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $753 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,619,655, or $5,683 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 58 work-hours and require parts costing $753, for a cost of
$5,683 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2016-08-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18491. Docket No. FAA-
2015-3988; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-005-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 6, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2014-17-51, Amendment 39-17999 (79 FR
64088, October 28, 2014) (``AD 2014-17-51'').
    (2) This AD affects AD 2014-03-17, Amendment 39-17754 (79 FR
9389, February 19, 2014) (``AD 2014-03-17''), only for the airplanes
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 5301 through 5665
inclusive, and 5701 through 5920 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fractured fastener heads on
the inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting at Wing Station (WS)
76.50 due to incorrect installation. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct incorrectly oriented or fractured fasteners, that
could result in premature failure of the fasteners attaching the
inboard flap hinge-box forward fitting; failure of the fasteners
could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and the flap
surface, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection, With New Service Information: Airplanes Not
Previously Inspected

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-17-51, with new service information. For airplanes on which the
actions required by AD 2014-03-17 have not been done as of November
12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-51): Within 10

flight cycles after November 12, 2014, or within 100 flight cycles
after March 6, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-03-17), whichever
occurs first, do a detailed visual inspection of each inboard flap
fastener of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25,
on both wings, to determine if the fasteners are correctly oriented
and intact (non-fractured, with intact fastener head). Do the
inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01, dated
September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September
26, 2013, Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices
1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013, or Revision 04, dated November
12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013
(for serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive); or Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 01, dated September 26,
2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013,
Revision 02, dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2,
dated September 26, 2013, or Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial
numbers 5701 through 5920 inclusive). As of the effective date of
this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006,
Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2,
dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-
57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1
and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions
required by this paragraph.
    (1) If all fasteners are found intact and correctly oriented, no
further action is required by this AD.
    (2) If any fastener is found fractured: Before further flight,
remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS
127.25, regardless of condition or orientation, on both wings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of
the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated
November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26,
2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph.
After replacement of all fasteners as required by this paragraph of
this AD, no further action is required by this AD.
    (3) If any incorrectly oriented but intact fastener is found,
and no fractured fastener is found, repeat the inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10
flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) or (k) of
this AD have been done.

(h) Retained Actions, With New Service Information: Airplanes
Previously Inspected, Having Incorrectly Oriented Fastener(s)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2014-17-51, with new service information. For airplanes on which an
inspection required by paragraph (g) or (j) of AD 2014-03-17 has
been done as of November 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-
51), and on which any incorrectly oriented fastener, but no
fractured fastener, was found: Except as provided by paragraph
(i)(3) of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection of all inboard
flap fasteners of the hinge-box forward fitting at WS 76.50 and WS
127.25, on both wings, to determine if the fasteners are intact
(non-fractured, with intact fastener head). Inspect within 10 flight
cycles after November 12, 2014, or within 100 flight cycles after
the most recent inspection done as required by AD 2014-03-17,
whichever occurs first. Inspect in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of the effective date of
this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006,
Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2,
dated September 26, 2013; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-
57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1
and 2, dated September 26, 2013; as applicable; for the actions
required by this paragraph.
    (1) If all fasteners are found intact, repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles, until the
requirements of paragraph (i)(1) or (k) of this AD have been done.
    (2) If any fastener is found fractured: Before further flight,
remove and replace all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS
127.25, regardless of condition or orientation, on both wings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. As of
the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated
November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26,
2013; as applicable; for the actions required by this paragraph.
After replacement of all fasteners as required by this paragraph, no
further action is required by this AD.

(i) Retained Terminating Action, With New Service Information

    This paragraph restates the terminating action specified in
paragraph (i) of AD 2014-17-51), with new service information.
    (1) Replacement of all forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and
WS 127.25, on both wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service information identified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, terminates the requirements of this AD. As
of the effective date of this AD, only use Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014,
including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013; or
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated
November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26,
2013; as applicable; for the actions specified in this paragraph.
    (2) Accomplishment of the applicable requirements of this AD
constitutes terminating action for the requirements of AD 2014-03-17
for that airplane only.
    (3) Replacement of all fractured and incorrectly oriented
fasteners before November 12, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-
17-51), as provided by paragraph (i) or (k) of AD 2014-03-17, is
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.

(j) Retained Special Flight Permit Prohibition

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2014-17-51. Special flight permits to operate the airplane to a
location where the airplane can be repaired in accordance with 14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199 are not allowed.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Post-Inspection Fastener Replacement

    For airplanes on which incorrectly oriented fasteners were found
during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(3), (h), or
(h)(1) of this AD, but none were found to be fractured: Within 24
months after the effective date of this AD, remove and replace all
forward and aft fasteners at WS 76.50 and WS 127.25, regardless of
condition or orientation, on affected wings, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A604-57-006, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including
Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers
5301 through 5665 inclusive); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A605-57-004, Revision 04, dated November 12, 2014, including
Appendices 1 and 2, dated September 26, 2013 (for serial numbers
5701 through 5920 inclusive). Accomplishing the requirements of this
paragraph terminates the requirements of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i)(1) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable
service information identified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and
(l)(1)(ii) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in
this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 03,
dated August 19, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September
26, 2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 03,
dated August 19, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated September
26, 2013.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were done before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (l)(2)(iv) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01,
dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2014-
03-17.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 02,
dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated

September 26, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-
17-51.
    (iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision
01, dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2014-
03-17.
    (iv) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-004, Revision 02,
dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-
17-51.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs previously approved for AD 2014-17-51 are acceptable
for the corresponding requirements of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-27R1,
dated August 29, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3988.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(6) and (o)(7) of this AD.

(o) 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
June 6, 2016.
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 04,
dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 04,
dated November 12, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 12, 2014 (79 FR 64088, October 28, 2014).
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 02,
dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 02,
dated January 22, 2014, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 6, 2014 (79 FR 9389, February 19, 2014).
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A604-57-006, Revision 01,
dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A605-57-004, Revision 01,
dated September 26, 2013, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated
September 26, 2013.
    (6) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (7) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (8) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-08959 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 61649]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24858]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67970; File No. SR-ICC-2012-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend Schedule 502 of the ICE Clear
Credit Rules To Provide for Clearing of Additional Single Name
Investment Grade CDS Contracts

October 3, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On August 9, 2012, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change SR-ICC-2012-12 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 24, 2012.\2\
The Commission received no comment letters. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67696 (August 20,
2012), 77 FR 51599 (August 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of proposed rule change is to provide for the clearance
of the following twenty additional investment grade Standard North
American Corporate Single Name CDS contracts: Nucor Corporation; V.F.
Corporation; The Procter & Gamble Company; Encana Corporation;
Weatherford International Ltd.; Chevron Corporation; Nexen Inc.; Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P.; Apache Corporation; Kimco Realty Corporation;
Prudential Financial, Inc.; Prologis, L.P.; HCP, Inc.; Lincoln National
Corporation; The Travelers Companies, Inc.; Textron Financial
Corporation; Textron Inc.; The Williams Companies, Inc.; Pacific Gas
and Electric Company; and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
(the ``Additional Single Names'').
    As with the Standard North American Corporate Single Names
currently cleared, ICC plans to provide for the clearance of contracts
with a restructuring type of no restructuring, standardized maturity
dates up to the 10-year tenor and both standardized coupons. One of the
Additional Single Names (Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.) was
recently added by Markit as one of the one hundred twenty-five single
constituents of its Markit CDX North American Investment Grade Series
18 Index, and is not currently being cleared by ICC. Another of the
Additional Single Names (Textron Financial Corporation) is a
constituent of the Series 8 through 12 of the Markit CDX North American
Investment Grade Index, and has not been cleared previously by ICC. All
other Additional Single Names are not constituents of Series 8 through
18 of the Markit CDX North American Investment Grade Index. The
Additional Single Names do not require any changes to the body of the
ICC Rules. ICC will clear the Additional Single Names pursuant to ICC's
existing Rules. The Additional Single Names do not require any changes
to the ICC risk management framework including the ICC margin
methodology, guaranty fund methodology, pricing parameters, or pricing
model. The only change submitted was the inclusion of the Additional
Single Names to Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules. The Additional Single
Names were reviewed by the ICC Risk Department, the ICC Trading
Advisory Committee, and the ICC Risk Committee.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \3\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \4\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds
which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which
it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) and other requirements of the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2012-12) be, and
hereby is, approved.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24858 Filed 10-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 115 (Friday, June 16, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27645-27652]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12698]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9963-36-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT59

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to stay
for two years certain requirements that are contained within the Final
Rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,'' published in the Federal
Register on June 3, 2016 (2016 Rule). On June 5, 2017, the EPA
published a notice that it stayed for three months the; fugitive
emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the
requirements for certification of closed vent systems by a professional
engineer in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA has
granted reconsideration based on specific objections to these
requirements. The proposed stay discussed in this action, which follows
the three-month stay, would provide the EPA sufficient time to propose,
take public comment, and issue a final action on the issues concerning
the specific requirements on which EPA has granted reconsideration.
During this time, the EPA also plans to complete its reconsideration
process for all remaining issues raised in these reconsideration
petitions regarding fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps, and
certification by professional engineer requirements. The EPA
acknowledges that the administrative reconsideration petitions include
additional issues regarding these three requirements other than the
issues for which we specifically have granted reconsideration. In
addition, since the publication of the 2016 Rule, the EPA has received
numerous questions relative to the implementation of these three
requirements. During the reconsideration proceeding, the EPA intends to
look broadly at the entire 2016 Rule. The EPA believes that addressing
all of these issues at the same time would provide clarity and
certainty for the public and the regulated community with regard to
these requirements. The EPA is seeking comment pertaining to this stay
and its duration and impact. The EPA is not taking comment at this time
on substantive issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the
other provisions subject to the reconsideration.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017. If a
hearing is requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be
received on or before August 9, 2017.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested by June
21, 2017, to accept oral comments on this proposed action. If a hearing
is requested, it will be held at the EPA's Washington, DC campus
located at 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The hearing,
if requested, will begin at 9 a.m. (local time) and will conclude at 4
p.m. (local time) on July 10, 2017. To request a hearing, to register
to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if a hearing will be held, please
contact Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any updates made to any aspect of the hearing, including whether or
not a hearing will be held, will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/actions-and-notices-about-oil-and-natural-gas#regactions. In addition,
you may contact Aimee St. Clair at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with public hearing inquiries. The EPA does not
intend to publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing any such
updates. Please go to https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry/actions-and-notices-about-oil-and-natural-gas#regactions for more information on the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0505, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment

contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D205-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled ``Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources; Final Rule,'' at 81 FR 35824 (``2016 Rule''). The
2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for
greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses, among other
things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations
(``fugitive emissions requirements'') and emissions from pneumatic
pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (i.e.,
centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps,
and storage vessels), the rule requires certification by a professional
engineer of the closed vent system design and capacity, as well as any
technical infeasibility determination relative to controlling pneumatic
pumps at well sites. For further information on the 2016 Rule, see 81
FR 35824 (June 3, 2016) and associated Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0505.
    On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted
administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various
aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
(42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).\1\ Those petitions include numerous
objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements, well site
pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by
professional engineer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of these petitions are included in the docket for the
2016 Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the
Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the
Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule
that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the
grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the
period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance
to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the
effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such
reconsideration.
    In a letter dated April 18, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for
reconsideration of the following objections relative to the fugitive
emissions requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and
receiving approval for the use of an alternative means of emission
limitations (AMEL) for purposes of compliance with the fugitive
emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule and (2) the applicability of
the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, the EPA identified
objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria
for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These
objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed
vent system by professional engineer (``PE certification
requirement''); and (2) the well site pneumatic pump standards. As part
of the administrative reconsideration proceeding, the EPA will prepare
a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and
the public an opportunity to comment on the fugitive emissions
requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements
for certification by professional engineer, and the issues associated
with these requirements.
    On June 5, 2017, the EPA published a notice that it stayed the
fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pumps
requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent
system by professional engineer for three months pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. This stay is effective from June 2, 2017, to
August 31, 2017. When we have issued similar stays in the past, it has
often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a
rulemaking process. See, e.g., 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009). In this
case, for the reasons stated below, we propose to stay these
requirements in the 2016 Rule for two years.

II. The Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements,
the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for
certification of closed vent system by professional engineer in the
2016 Rule until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
    As explained above, the EPA has convened a proceeding for
reconsideration based on the following two objections to the fugitive
emission requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and
receiving approval for the use of an AMEL for the fugitive emissions
requirements; and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions
requirements to low production well sites. These issues determine the
universe of sources that must implement the fugitive emissions
requirements. With respect to the AMEL issue, the EPA recognizes that a
number of states have developed programs to control oil and gas
emission sources in their own states, and that certain owners or
operators may achieve equivalent, or more, emission reduction from
their affected source(s) than the required reduction under the 2016
Rule by complying with their state-mandated requirements. 81 FR 35871.
During development of the 2016 Rule, the EPA evaluated state fugitive
emissions programs in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West
Virginia, and Wyoming. Additionally, California has recently proposed
regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas activities,
including proposing fugitive emissions requirements. These seven states
represent a significant portion of the oil and gas activities in the
U.S. To encourage states' proactive efforts to reduce emissions from
the oil and gas industry, the EPA included AMEL provisions in the final
2016 Rule, which can be used to request and obtain EPA approval of
state programs, or other means, as an alternative for complying with
the fugitive emissions requirements. Id.
    While the AMEL provisions apply to work practice standards besides
the fugitive emissions requirements, these other standards (i.e., well
completions and reciprocating compressors work practice standards) have
been implemented since they were first promulgated in 2012\3\ (subpart
OOOO) to reduce VOC emissions from hydraulically fractured gas well

completions and reciprocating compressors used in production, and there
has not been a demand for AMEL for these standards. In contrast, the
newly promulgated fugitive emissions requirements are still in the
process of being phased in.\4\ In addition, as the EPA observed in the
2016 Rule, fugitive emissions monitoring is a field of emerging
technology, and major advances are expected in the near future. 81 FR
35860-1. For the reasons stated above, the AMEL provisions are of
particular importance to the fugitive emissions requirements as they
directly impact how compliance can be achieved with respect to the
fugitive emissions requirements. However, several administrative
reconsideration petitions raised issues and questions regarding the
AMEL provisions relative to the fugitive emissions requirements (e.g.,
who can apply for and who can use an approved AMEL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Reviews. 77 FR 49490 (August 16, 2012).
    \4\ As mentioned above, the fugitive emissions requirements,
including the June 3, 2017, deadline for conducting initial
monitoring survey, are currently stayed for three months pursuant to
section 307(d)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These inquiries and concerns suggest that the AMEL provisions
included in the 2016 Rule, which were finalized without having been
proposed for notice and comment, may not be sufficiently clear to
facilitate effective application and approval of AMEL, and therefore
fail to serve their intended purpose. The ability to apply for and
obtain AMEL for fugitive emissions requirements determines whether well
sites and compressor stations, in particular those subject to existing
state programs or those which have invested in emerging technology,
must now redirect or expend additional resources and efforts to
implement the 2016 Rule's fugitive emissions requirements, which may
negatively impact or otherwise complicate their compliance with
applicable state programs and/or their progress in using emerging
technology, an endeavor that may potentially be rendered unnecessary
should the sources qualify for AMEL. For the reasons stated above, the
EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the fugitive emissions
requirements while it completes a review of the current AMEL process
via rulemaking.
    The low production well site issue concerns the scope of the
sources subject to the well site fugitive emissions requirements. The
EPA had proposed to exempt low production well sites from the fugitive
emissions requirements, believing the lower production associated with
these wells would generally result in lower fugitive emissions. 80 FR
56639. However, in the final rule, the EPA required that these well
sites comply with the fugitive emissions requirements, based on
information and rationale not presented for public comment during the
proposal stage. See 81 FR 35856 (``. . . well site fugitive emissions
are not correlated with levels of production, but rather based on the
number of pieces of equipment and components''). Available information
indicated that ``30 percent of natural gas wells are low production
wells, and 43 percent of all oil wells are low production wells.'' 81
FR 35856. In light of the sizable percentage of well sites that may be
impacted by the outcome of this reconsideration, the EPA believes that
it is reasonable to stay the well site fugitive emissions requirements
while the EPA reassesses whether an exemption is appropriate and, if
so, establishes proper criteria for such exemption.
    For closed vent systems used to comply with the emission standards
for various equipment used in the oil and natural gas sector, the 2016
Rule requires certification by a professional engineer that a closed
vent system design and capacity assessment was conducted under his or
her direction or supervision and that the assessment and resulting
report were conducted pursuant to the requirements of the 2016 Rule.
This certification requirement must be met in order comply with the
emissions standards for centrifugal compressors, reciprocating
compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels; as such, this
requirement impacts a wide range of sources with respect to their
ability to show compliance. With the exception of pneumatic pumps, all
of the equipment mentioned above is covered by the oil and gas NSPS,
subpart OOOO, that was promulgated in 2012, and have had to demonstrate
compliance without this certification requirement. While the EPA has
observed instances of inadequate design and capacities of the closed
vent system resulting in excess emissions from some storage vessels, 80
FR 56649, it is not clear how pervasive this issue is, in particular
with respect to all the other equipment mentioned above. Further, as
noted by one petitioner, ``no costs associated with the certification
requirement were considered or provided for review during the proposal
process.'' \5\ Section 111 of the CAA requires that the EPA consider,
among other factors, the cost associated with establishing a new source
performance standard. See 111(a)(1) of the CAA. The statute is thus
clear that cost is an important consideration in determining whether to
impose a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7682, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In finalizing the 2016 Rule, the EPA made clear that it viewed the
PE certification requirement to be an important aspect of a number of
performance standards in the rule. The EPA acknowledges that it had not
analyzed the costs associated with the PE certification requirement and
evaluated whether the improved environmental performance this
requirement may achieve justifies the associated costs and other
compliance burden. Because the emission standards for these various
equipment (with the exception of the well site pneumatic pump standards
as discussed later in this notice) will continue to apply during the
proposed stay of this certification requirement, emission reductions
from this equipment will continue to be achieved during the stay. For
the reasons stated above, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to
stay the requirement for closed vent system certification by
professional engineer while the EPA evaluates the benefits, as well as
the cost and other possible compliance burden, associated with this
requirement.
    In addition to the closed vent system certification requirement,
there are other issues that we are reconsidering that may further
complicate a source's ability to comply with the well site pneumatic
pump standards. Specifically, the 2016 Rule requires certification by a
professional engineer of technical infeasibility in order for a well
site pneumatic pump to qualify for an exemption from controlling
emissions using an existing control or process. The certification
requirement was included in the 2016 Rule without having been
previously proposed for notice and comment. Further, the technical
infeasibility exemption is not available for a well site that is a
``greenfield'' site, a caveat and term that was also not proposed for
notice and comment and, as evident from several reconsideration
petitions, has generated a number of questions and issues.
    As explained above, certification of closed vent systems by a
professional engineer affects how compliance with various emission
standards is to be determined. The technical infeasibility exemption
and the associated certification by professional engineer requirement,
as well as the ``greenfield'' issues described above, dictate whether a
source must comply with the emission reduction requirement for well
site pneumatic pumps. These requirements and their associated issues
directly impact the ability of a wide range of

sources, in particular well site pneumatic pumps, to achieve and show
compliance with their applicable standards. Therefore, the EPA believes
it is reasonable to stay these requirements pending reconsideration.
    The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements,
the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for
certification by professional engineer for 2 years. As described above,
these three requirements entail a wide range of technically complex
issues. For example, the AMEL provisions involve determining
equivalency with the fugitive emissions requirements, and the low
production well site exemption requires determining the factors that
correlate to fugitive emissions. Further, based on the great interest
expressed by stakeholders (including states, industry, and
manufacturers of emerging monitoring technology), in particular on the
AMEL,\6\ the EPA anticipates receiving a large amount of information
during the reconsideration proceeding. Also, during the reconsideration
proceeding the EPA intends to request comment on the cost and other
compliance burden, among other relevant information, associated with
the requirement for certification by a professional engineer. In light
of the above, the EPA believes that two years would provide sufficient
time to review available information and propose, take public comment,
and issue a final action on the reconsideration of these issues. The
administrative reconsideration petitions raise numerous other issues
relative to the fugitive emission requirements, well site pneumatic
pump standards, and requirements for certification by professional
engineer other than those described above. The EPA has also been asked
clarifying questions on implementation of these requirements from
stakeholders since the 2016 Rule was published. These questions touch
on issues such as the timeframe for repair of leaking components,
timeframe for closed vent system inspection definitions related to
fugitive emissions and pneumatic pump requirements, definitions of the
affected facilities, and the temperature waiver for quarterly
monitoring. Given the breadth of the issues identified in the petitions
for reconsideration of the 2016 Rule, and the additional implementation
questions from stakeholders following publication, the EPA believes
that it is in the public interest that it address these other related
issues at the same time it reconsiders the fugitive emissions
requirements, well site pneumatic pumps standards, and the
certification by professional engineer requirements, thereby avoiding
addressing these requirements in a piecemeal fashion. The EPA believes
that staying the specified requirements for two years is necessary to
provide sufficient time to complete the actions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Request for
Information, Emerging Technologies. 81 FR 46670 (July 18, 2016), and
associated docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that we are not taking comment at this time on substantive
issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the other provisions
subject to the reconsideration. This notice simply proposes to stay the
specified requirements for two years. The EPA is seeking comment
pertaining to this stay and its duration. A separate Federal Register
notice published in the near future will specifically solicit comment
on substantive issues concerning these requirements.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with the 2016
Rule, which is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. As
this action affects two of the components that were included in the
costs and benefits estimations, the fugitive requirements and the
pneumatic pump requirements, as well as only affects three years of
compliance activity, 2017 through 2019, the cost estimates provided
here focus only on those affected provisions and years. It should be
noted that these figures only represent the cost reductions associated
with these activities. Although there would be foregone benefits as a
result of this proposed delay, a quantitative estimate of this effect
is not currently available, and therefore the associated foregone
benefits are not presented.
    This action delays compliance for fugitive requirements from
approximately September 2017 until September 2019. In the 2016 rule,
fugitive components accumulated as affected sources from September 2015
until June 2017, when all accumulated and new sources moving forward
had to be in compliance. The previously published three-month stay
delayed compliance until September 2017. This proposed stay further
delays compliance so affected components accumulate from September 2015
through September 2019, after which all accumulated sources and new
sources moving forward must be in compliance.
    This action also extends the stay for pneumatic pump requirements
at well sites that was enacted in the three-month stay. Pneumatic pump
affected facilities at well sites were required to be in compliance
from November 2016 until June 2017 when EPA issued the three-month
stay. Newly affected sources accumulate under the initial three-month
stay starting in June 2017 to September 2017. This proposed stay delays
compliance until September 2019, after which the accumulated affected
sources and newly affected sources moving forward must be in
compliance.
    Costs and benefits for each year after 2019 remain unaffected.
Using the estimated source counts as presented in Table 3-2 of the 2016
RIA, the EPA estimated a baseline for the capital costs, annual
operating and maintenance costs and value of product recovery between
2017 and 2019 for the two requirements. This baseline accounts for the
initial three-month stay. Then, the EPA estimated these costs under
this proposed stay. Total costs for both actions were calculated as
capital costs plus annual costs minus revenue from product recovery.
These undiscounted costs are presented in Table 1, below. The
difference between them, cost savings due to this proposed stay, is
presented in Table 2. Table 3 presents the total costs, accounting for
the value of product recovery, and their differences discounted to 2017
using both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate, the present
values of these costs, and their equivalent annualized values. The
equivalent annualized values are the annualized present values, or the
even flow of the present values, over the three years affected by this
proposed action. These costs are presented in 2016 dollars.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Careful consideration must be made in comparing these costs
to those presented in the 2016 RIA. Costs presented in the 2016 RIA
are costs in 2020 and 2025 and are presented in 2012 dollars. Costs
presented here are for 2017, 2018 and 2019 and presented in 2016
dollars, in accordance with OMB Guidance M-17-21 for EO 13771. In
addition, some of the presented capital costs presented in the 2016
RIA are annualized values, as are the presented total costs; capital
costs, and therefore total costs, are not annualized in the analysis
presented here.

                                         Table 1--Cost Estimates of the Baseline and This Proposal, Undiscounted
                                                                    [2016$ millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Baseline                                                                     Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Revenue                                             Revenue
                                                    Capital       Annual        from                    Capital       Annual        from
                                                     costs        costs       product    Total costs     costs        costs       product    Total costs
                                                                              recovery                                            recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................          $43          $61          $11          $92           $3           $0           $0           $3
2018............................................           21          153           28          146            0            0            0            0
2019............................................           21          199           36          184           83          199           36          246
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These costs only account for the fugitive emissions and well site pneumatic pumps requirements. We did not include the costs of professional
  engineer certification because these costs were not accounted for in the 2016 Rule. Values may not sum due to rounding.

            Table 2--Difference of the Cost Estimates of the Baseline and this Proposal, Undiscounted
                                                [2016$ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Difference
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revenue from
                                                   Capital costs   Annual costs       product       Total costs
                                                                                recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................            -$40            -$61            -$11            -$89
2018............................................             -21            -153             -28            -146
2019............................................              61               0               0              61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Table 3--Total Cost Estimates of the Baseline and This Proposal, Discounted to 2017
                                                                    [2016$ millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Baseline                        Proposal                       Difference
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                3%              7%              3%              7%              3%              7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................................             $92             $92              $3              $3            -$89            -$89
2018....................................................             142             136               0               0            -142            -136
2019....................................................             174             161             231             214              58              53
Present Value...........................................             408             390             234             217            -173            -172
Equivalent Annualized Value.............................             140             139              80              77             -60             -61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These costs only account for the fugitive emissions and well site pneumatic pumps requirements. We did not include the costs of professional
  engineer certification because these costs were not accounted for in the 2016 Rule. These total costs account for the value of product recovery.

    The total costs presented here reflect the total capital costs
estimated for all affected sources in each year, as well as the
accumulated annual operating and maintenance costs and associated
product recovery values. The difference in estimated costs between the
baseline and this proposed action are largely due to the annual
operating and maintenance that would be incurred in 2017 and 2018 by
affected components under the baseline that are not incurred under the
stay. The small cost of this proposal in 2017 is due to the cost of
compliance for affected pneumatic pumps at well sites before the three-
month stay began. The difference in costs in 2019 is due to the capital
costs borne by new sources constructed prior to 2019 whose compliance
was delayed until 2019 under this proposal.
    As can be seen in Table 2, the cost savings of this proposal in
2017 and 2018, mainly due to forgone annual operating and maintenance
costs, are slightly offset by the higher costs in 2019, due to the
larger number of sources that would be incurring capital and annual
operating and maintenance costs in that year under this proposal. The
larger costs savings in the early years leads to net cost savings from
this action. As can be seen in Table 3, the estimated total present
value of cost savings associated with this proposal are $173 million
when using a 3 percent discount rate and $172 million when using a 7
percent discount rate. The equivalent annualized values of the cost
savings are $60 million per year when using a 3 percent discount rate
and $61 million per year using a 7 percent discount rate.
    The estimates presented here are made under a few assumptions,
including:
     The EPA is assuming that no affected entities with
compliance dates after June 2017 have begun performing compliance
activities. If some affected entities have already begun performing
compliance activities, there are associated sunk costs and ongoing
operating and maintenance costs that should be accounted for in the
estimates of costs of this proposal; this would reduce the cost savings
associated with this proposal.
     Affected entities may decide not to delay compliance by
the full two years because earlier compliance may allow for
coordination of regulatory and non-regulatory capital work, thus
minimizing operational downtime. Earlier compliance leads to earlier

incurrence of annual costs and benefits, which would reduce the cost
savings associated with this proposed action.
     However, this may also reduce capital costs for those
entities electing to comply earlier under this proposal--for instance,
if overtime payments and rush charges can be avoided. This may increase
the cost savings associated with the proposal.
     The cost of the PE certification was not taken into
account in the 2016 RIA and therefore the costs of this provision under
the 2016 rule cannot be compared to the costs under this proposal. The
inclusion of the costs of this certification would likely increase the
cost savings under this proposal, as costs related to the
certifications that would otherwise take place between September 2017
and September 2019 would no longer be incurred.
     The costs presented here assumes pneumatic pumps become
affected evenly throughout the year. If more sources become affected in
the earlier (later) months than is assumed, the associated sunk costs
will be higher (lower) than presented and cost savings associated with
this proposal will decrease (increase).
    Given data limitations, the cost estimates related to this action
have not been adjusted to reflect these analytic considerations. The
cost estimates also do not reflect any changes in baseline conditions,
with the exception of the initial three-month stay, since the analysis
for the 2016 rule was conducted (e.g., new developments in state level
fugitive emissions programs, technological change, or other factors
affecting the cost of compliance activities).
    Although the potential existence of sunk costs, voluntary early
compliance, and changes in baseline assumptions would likely reduce the
effects of this proposed action to less than the difference shown in
Table 1, the impact in at least one year is still almost certainly
greater than $100 million, thus rendering this action economically
significant under Executive Order 12866.
    The analysis accompanying the 2016 Rule includes estimates of the
2016 Rule's emission reduction benefits. It should be noted that, just
as the annual operating and maintenance costs and value of product
recovery in 2017 and 2018 are not incurred by affected sources under
the proposal, neither are the associated climate and human health
benefits. Although there would be foregone benefits as a result of this
proposed delay, a quantitative estimate of this effect is not currently
available.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. The information collection
requirements in the final 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted
for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR
2523.01. This action does not result in changes to the approved ICR for
subpart OOOO or the submitted ICR for subpart OOOOa, so the information
collection estimates of project cost and hour burdens have not been
revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action proposes a limited stay for
certain requirements. This proposed stay will decrease the burden on
small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a final RFA
analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-7630. We have therefore concluded that this action will have
a net negative regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

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

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect
on children. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016
Rule (81 FR 35893). However, because this action merely proposes to
delay the 2016 Rule, this action will not change any impacts of the
2016 Rule after the stay. Any impacts on children's health caused by
the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the
proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more
appropriate to consider the impact on children's health in the context
of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be
found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not
change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change
any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on
minority populations and low-income populations caused by

the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the
proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more
appropriate to consider the impact on minority populations and low-
income populations in the context of any substantive changes proposed
as part of reconsideration.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: June 12, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart OOOOa--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 60.5393a is amended by:
0
a. Staying paragraphs (b) and (c) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (f).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  60.5393a  What GHG and VOC standards apply to pneumatic pump
affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (f) Pneumatic pumps at a well site are not subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section until [DATE 2
YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].

Sec.  60.5397a   [AMENDED]

0
3. Section 60.5397a is stayed until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
0
4. Section 60.5410a is amended by:
0
a. Staying paragraphs (e)(2) through (5) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register];
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(8); and
0
c. Staying paragraph (j) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  60.5410a   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel,
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, collection
of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station, and equipment
leaks and sweetening unit affected facilities at onshore natural gas
processing plants?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well are not subject to
the requirements of paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section until
[DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
0
5. Section 60.5411a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Staying paragraph (d) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register]; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5411a   What additional requirements must I meet to determine
initial compliance for my covers and closed vent systems routing
emissions from centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid degassing systems,
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels?

    You must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each
cover and closed vent system used to comply with the emission standards
for your centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems,
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section until
[DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
0
6. Section 60.5415a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraph
(b)(4); and
0
b. Staying paragraph (h) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5415a   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel,
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, and
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station
affected facilities, and affected facilities at onshore natural gas
processing plants?

* * * * *
    (b) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility and each
pneumatic pump affected facility, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section except as
provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For each centrifugal
compressor affected facility, you also must demonstrate continuous
compliance according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section until
[DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
0
7. Section 60.5416a is amended by revising the introductory text and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5416a   What are the initial and continuous cover and closed
vent system inspection and monitoring requirements for my centrifugal
compressor, reciprocating compressor, pneumatic pump, and storage
vessel affected facilities?

    For each closed vent system or cover at your storage vessel,
centrifugal compressor, reciprocating compressor and pneumatic pump
affected facilities, you must comply with the applicable requirements
of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
0
8. Section 60.5420a is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Staying paragraphs (b)(7), (8), and (12) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register];
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(13); and
0
d. Staying paragraphs (c)(15) through (17) until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5420a   What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) Reporting requirements. You must submit annual reports
containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8)
and (12) of this section and performance test reports as specified in
paragraph (b)(9) or (10) of this section, if applicable, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(13) of this section. You must submit annual
reports following the procedure specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this
section. The initial annual report is due no later than 90 days after
the end of the initial compliance period as determined according to
Sec.  60.5410a. Subsequent annual reports are due no later than same
date each year as the initial annual report. If you own or operate more
than one affected facility, you may submit one report for multiple
affected facilities provided the report contains all of the information
required as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (b)(13) of this section. Annual reports
may coincide with title V reports as long as all the required elements
of the annual report are included. You may arrange with the
Administrator a common schedule on which reports required by this part
may be submitted as long as the schedule does not extend the reporting
period.
* * * * *
    (13) The collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site
(as defined in Sec.  60.5430a), the collection of fugitive emissions
components at a compressor station (as defined in Sec.  60.5430a), and
pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site (as defined in Sec.
60.5365a(h)(2)) are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-12698 Filed 6-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P