Federal Register Vol. 83, No.89,

I. Background

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, DHS U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proposes to modify, rename, and reissue a current DHS Privacy Act system of records notice (SORN) titled, “DHS/ICE-007 Alien Criminal Response Information Management (ACRIMe)” 78 FR 10623 (Feb. 14, 2013). ICE had previously issued a Final Rule for this SORN on Aug. 31, 2009, published at 74 FR 45079. As a result of the modifications to this SORN, DHS/ICE is proposing to issue this new rule.

DHS/ICE update to ACRIMe includes several changes. First, the system of records is being renamed “Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe)” to better align with the purpose of the system. This system of records covers records documenting inquiries received from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies so ICE can check the immigration status and criminal history of individuals who are arrested or otherwise encountered by those agencies; and other federal agencies for screening (including as part of background checks being conducted by those agencies) to inform those agencies' determinations regarding suitability for employment, access, sponsorship of an unaccompanied alien child, or other purposes or otherwise encountered by those agencies.

Second, DHS is adding a purpose of the system, as ICE will now screen individuals seeking approval from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to sponsor an unaccompanied alien child, as well as other adult members of the potential sponsor's household, to verify or ascertain citizenship or immigration status, immigration history, and criminal history.

Third, DHS is clarifying that the Department may use information maintained in this system of records for other purposes consistent with its statutory authorities.

Fourth, this update adds a new category of individuals: Those seeking approval from HHS to sponsor an unaccompanied alien child and/or other adult members of the potential sponsor's household.

Fifth, DHS is adding one category of records to include biometrics for potential sponsors and/or other adult members of the potential sponsor's household. DHS has also modified a category of records to include citizenship or immigration status and criminal and immigration history information for sponsorship of unaccompanied alien children.

Sixth, DHS is adding one new routine use that would allow ICE to share from this system of records the results of screening of potential sponsors and adult members of their households with HHS to inform HHS's determination whether to grant sponsor applications. DHS is also modifying routine use (E) and adding routine use (F) to conform to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-12 “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” (Jan. 3, 2017).

Seventh, DHS is revising the records retention periods so that they align with the records retention schedule approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Finally, DHS is modifying this SORN since this system will no longer store information pertaining to the collection, processing, and response to public tip information concerning customs and immigration violations, suspicious activity, or other law enforcement matters. ICE will continue to collect information about individuals reporting tips, the subjects of such tips, and any information ICE collects in following up on a tip in the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records, 82 FR 20905 (May 4, 2017).

As a result, the following changes are being made: (1) Two categories of individuals are being removed from the system—individuals who report tips and individuals about whom those reports are made; (2) two categories of records are being removed from the system—those public tip records, which consist of information contained in tips received from the public or other sources regarding customs and immigration violations, other actual or potential violations of law, and suspicious activities; and also records created pertaining to ICE's follow-up activities regarding a tip; (3) one routine use is being removed from the system that allows DHS to disclose reports of suspicious activity, tips, potential violations of law, and other relevant information to external law enforcement agencies; and (4) four purposes for the collection of information are being removed from the system. Purpose (4) in the prior iteration of this SORN has been removed as it pertains to public tip records. Purposes (5), (6), and (7) have been removed since these purposes are more focused on ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) rather than the system as a whole.

A more complete description of the changes to this SORN can be found in the publication of this modified SORN found elsewhere in the Federal Register. Further, this modified system of records and rule will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from portions of the Act. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ICE-007 Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe) System of Records. Some information in DHS/ICE-007 Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe) System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

A SORN for DHS/ICE-007 Criminal History and Immigration Verification (CHIVe) System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0327; Product Identifier 2018-CE-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

We received a report of skewed flap and aileron binding due to fatigue cracks in the flap support structure caused by repetitive flap loads on a Learjet, Inc. Model 31A. As of June 2017, cracks in the flap support structure were reported (due to Alert Service Bulletins published in March 2017) on Models 31, 31A, 35A, 55, and 60 airplanes. Repetitive flap loads occur on all models identified by this proposed AD. Failure of the flap nose roller support bracket allows skewed flap and aileron binding, which can cause loss of roll control on approach. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control.

Although there have been no reports of cracks on the Models 28, 29, 35, 36, 36A, 55B, and 55C airplanes, these airplanes do incorporate the same design flap support structure.

We reviewed Bombardier Learjet 28/29 Service Bulletin (SB) 28/29-27-31 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 31 SB 31-27-35 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 35/36 SB 35/36 -27-50 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; Bombardier Learjet 55 SB 55-27-41 Recommended, dated September 11, 2017; and Bombardier Learjet 60 SB 60-27-39 Recommended, Revision 1, dated January 15, 2018. For the applicable models, the service information describes procedures for replacement of the flap nose roller fitting, nose roller support bracket, and adjacent rib support structure with improved components. The service information also contains instructions to ensure correct flap alignment. 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.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

The published service information does not list Models 31A, 35A, 36A, 55B, or 55C as affected models. However, the serial numbers in the service information does reflect these models. The serial numbers in the service information (except for Models 28/29) does not start with -001, but the effectivity in this AD starts with -001 for all models. The service information for all models also specifies to submit a compliance response form to the manufacturer; however, this AD does not require that action.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 706 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0396; Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

We are proposing this AD to mitigate the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane. 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-2018-0396.

This NPRM would not supersede AD 2015-02-16. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2015-02-16.

Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017; and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 4, “System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR),” Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes the revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0397; Product Identifier 2017-NM-163-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-32, dated October 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

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-2018-0397.

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 700-27-5009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017; and Service Bulletin 700-27-6009, Revision 01, dated July 18, 2017. This service information describes an eddy current inspection on certain support brackets of the elevator bell crank for any cracking at the fastener holes, a measurement to confirm that the fastener hole diameters are within tolerance, and replacement with a new support bracket of the elevator bell crank. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0366; Product Identifier 2017-NM-166-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0222R1, dated December 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and/or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

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-2018-0366.

This NPRM would not supersede AD 2008-04-19 R1 and AD 2015-26-09. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2008-04-19 R1 and AD 2015-26-09 for ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes only.

In addition, we have determined that accomplishment of the proposed actions terminates all requirements of AD 2000-23-04 R1, Amendment 39-12174 (66 FR 19381, April 16, 2001).

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR42-400/-500, Time Limits Document (TL), Revision 11, dated May 5, 2015. This service information describes life limits and maintenance requirements for the affected airplanes.

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR42-400/-500 Temporary Revision TR01/17, dated May 3, 2017, to the ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Document (TL). This service information describes changes to life limits and maintenance requirements of certain tasks for the affected airplanes.

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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.

To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.

This proposed AD therefore would apply to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS temporary revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although this figure may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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.

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2017-0022, dated February 8, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters equipped with a cabin sliding plug door modified in accordance with Airbus Helicopters modification (MOD) 0722338. Helicopters with Eurocopter MOD 0725366 are exempt from the EASA AD's requirements.

EASA advises that the emergency jettison test of a cabin lateral sliding plug door failed during a scheduled inspection and test of the door's jettison mechanism. According to EASA, an investigation revealed that the jettison handle cable interfered with the cable clamps. EASA states that this condition could lead to jamming of the door jettisoning mechanism, preventing jettisoning of the affected door during an emergency, possibly obstructing evacuation of the occupants. The EASA AD consequently requires repetitive inspections of the jettisoning mechanism of the LH and RH door, followed by corrective actions if needed.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-52.00.56, Revision 0, dated January 30, 2017, which specifies pulling on the inner jettison handle to determine whether the cables come into contact with the cable clamps. If there is contact, this service information specifies changing the position of the cable clamps to prevent interference.

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.

We also reviewed Eurocopter Service Bulletin No. 332-52.00.28, Revision 1, dated April 29, 1998, which contains procedures to improve the door jettison system. Eurocopter identifies compliance with this service information as MOD 0725366.

This proposed AD would require before flight over water or within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first, inspecting the jettisoning mechanism of the LH and RH cabin doors for correct operation by pulling on the inner jettison handle to determine whether the cable clamp contacts the top and bottom horizontal cables. If there is contact between cable clamp and the horizontal cables, this proposed AD would require changing the position of the cable clamps to remove any contact.

The EASA AD requires that the initial inspection occur during the next jettisoning test of the doors or within 110 flight hours, whichever occurs first, and thereafter during certain maintenance tasks. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection within 110 hours TIS or prior to flying over water.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that inspecting the jettisoning mechanism and changing the orientation of the cable clamps, if necessary, would require 4 work-hours. No parts would be required for a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $6,460 for the U.S. fleet.

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.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

We are proposing amendments to Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.1

We are proposing to amend certain provisions of our auditor independence rules. The Commission has long considered auditor independence to be essential to reliable financial reporting and critical to the effective functioning of the U.S. capital markets.2 Independent auditors have an important public trust.3 Many Commission regulations require entities to file or furnish financial statements that have been audited by an independent auditor; such entities include operating companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisers, pooled investment vehicles,4 and registered broker-dealers.5

The Commission's auditor independence standard is set forth in Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, which requires auditors 6 to be independent of their audit clients both “in fact and in appearance.” 7 Rule 2-01(b) provides that the Commission will not recognize an accountant as independent with respect to an audit client if the accountant is not (or if a reasonable investor with knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances would conclude that the accountant is not) capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues encompassed within the accountant's engagement.8

Rule 2-01(c) sets forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that the Commission considers to be inconsistent with the independence standard in Rule 2-01(b), including certain direct financial relationships between an accountant and audit client and other circumstances where the accountant has a financial interest in the audit client.9 In particular, the restriction on debtor-creditor relationships in Rule 2-01(c)(1)(ii)(A) (the “Loan Provision”) generally provides that an accountant is not independent when (a) the accounting firm, (b) any covered person 10 in the accounting firm (e.g., the audit engagement team and those in the chain of command), or (c) any of the covered person's immediate family members has any loan (including any margin loan) to or from (x) an audit client, or (y) an audit client's officers, directors, or (z) record or beneficial owners of more than 10 percent of the audit client's equity securities.11 We note that simply because a lender to an auditor holds 10 percent or less of an audit client's equity securities does not, in itself, establish that the auditor is independent under Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X. The general standard under Rule 2-01(b) and the remainder of Rule 2-01(c) still apply to auditors and their audit clients regardless of the applicability of the Loan Provision.

Thus, in the above illustration, pursuant to the Loan Provision, a lending relationship between any entity in the left hand column and any entity in the right-hand column impairs independence, unless an exception applies.

When the Commission proposed the Loan Provision, it noted that a debtor-creditor relationship between an auditor and its audit client reasonably could be viewed as “creating a self-interest that competes with the auditor's obligation to serve only investors' interests.” 12 The Commission's concern about a competing self-interest extended beyond loans directly between the auditor and its audit client to loans between the auditor and those shareholders of the audit client who have a “special and influential role” with the audit client.13 As a proxy for identifying a “special and influential role,” the Commission adopted a bright-line test for loans to or from a record or beneficial owner of more than 10 percent of an audit client's equity securities.14

Under Rule 2-01(f)(6) of Regulation S-X, the term “audit client” is defined to include any affiliate of the entity whose financial statements are being audited.15 Rule 2-01(f)(4) provides that “affiliates of the audit client” include entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with the audit client. As a result, generally, an accounting firm is not independent under the Loan Provision if it has a lending relationship with an entity having record or beneficial ownership of more than 10 percent of the equity securities of either (a) the firm's audit client; or (b) any entity that is a controlling parent company of the audit client, a controlled subsidiary of the audit client, or an entity under common control with the audit client.

In addition, the term “affiliate of the audit client” includes each entity in an investment company complex (“ICC”) of which the audit client is a part.16 Accordingly, in the ICC context, an accounting firm is considered not independent under the Loan Provision if it has a lending relationship with an entity having record or beneficial ownership of more than 10 percent of any entity within the ICC, regardless of which entities in the ICC are audited by the accounting firm.

The Commission has become aware that, in certain circumstances, the existing Loan Provision may not be functioning as it was intended, under current market conditions. It also presents significant practical challenges.17 Registered investment companies, pooled investment vehicles, and registered investment advisers have articulated concerns about the Loan Provision in both public disclosures 18 and, together with their auditors, in extensive consultations with Commission staff.19 It has become clear that there are certain fact patterns where an auditor's objectivity and impartiality is not impaired despite a failure to comply with the requirements of the Loan Provision. 20

One challenge associated with the Loan Provision is that it applies to both “record” and “beneficial” owners of the audit client's equity securities. However, publicly traded shares, as well as certain fund shares, often are registered in the name of a relatively small number of financial intermediaries 21 as “record” owners for the benefit of their clients or customers. Certain of these financial intermediaries may also be lenders to public accounting firms or be affiliated with financial institutions that may be lenders to public accounting firms.22 As a result, audit clients may have financial intermediaries that own, on a “record” basis, more than 10 percent of the issuer's shares and are also lenders to public accounting firms, covered persons of accounting firms, and their immediate family members, or are affiliated with companies that are lenders to public accounting firms (see Figure 2 below for illustration). However, these financial intermediaries are not “beneficial” owners. They also may not have control over whether they are “record” owners of more than 10 percent of the issuer's shares.

I. Background on the Montana Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Montana Program

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a state to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, state laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions concerning the Montana program and program amendments at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30.

By letter dated February 27, 2017 (FDMS Document ID No. OSM-2017-0001-0002), Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The proposed changes are the result of a Montana state senate bill which required adoption of regulations pertaining to in situ coal gasification.

Specifically, Montana proposes to codify language from Senate Bill 292 under the Montana Strip and Underground Mine Reclamation Act. This language, approved by the 2011 Montana Legislature, directs the Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER) to adopt rules pertaining to in situ coal processing and provides that those rules may not be more stringent than the comparable federal regulations or guidelines. The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARMs) currently have two regulatory provisions, ARM 17.24.902 and ARM 17.24.904, that specifically address in situ coal gasification and that list subchapters of the ARMs that apply to in situ coal gasification. Following passage of Senate Bill 292, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality reviewed Montana's rules and determined that most of the rules relating to underground coal mining should apply to in situ operations. It recommended that, rather than adopting rules that would duplicate existing rules, BER should simply list the rules that would not apply to in situ operations. To reflect this approach, Montana now proposes adding a new ARM 17.24.905, which specifies that the ARMs pertaining to air pollution control plans, monitoring for settlement of regraded areas, augering and remining do not apply to in situ coal gasification. Montana also proposes ministerial changes to ARM 17.24.902 and ARM 17.24.903 that reflect these exemptions. Finally, Montana proposes to allow the regulatory authority to apply other rules, which are not routinely applied to all in situ operations, on a mine-specific basis.

The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES or at www.regulations.gov.

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana program.

If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent state or federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on May 23, 2018. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

This rulemaking is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

When a state submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

On March 12, 2018, we published a proposed rule that would revise the Pennsylvania program. By letter dated August 4, 2017 (Administrative Record No. PA 899.00), Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The Pennsylvania General Assembly recently amended the BMSLCA to include language clarifying the circumstances where a finding of presumptive evidence of pollution is not warranted under the Commonwealth's Clean Streams Law.

A. By way of State Bill 624, Pennsylvania proposes additional language to the BMSLCA, Section 5(i) that states: “In a permit application to conduct bituminous coal mining operations, subject to this act, planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner which is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of surface waters of the Commonwealth shall not be considered presumptive evidence that the proposed bituminous coal mining operations have the potential to cause pollution as defined in section 1 of the act of June 22, 1937 (Pub. L. 1987, No. 394), known as “The Clean Streams Law”.

B. Further, Pennsylvania proposes additional language to BMSLCA, Section 5(j) as follows: “The provisions of subsection (i) shall only apply if: (1) A person submits an application to conduct bituminous mining operations subject to this act to the department that provides for the restoration of the premining range of flows and restoration of premining biological communities in any waters of this Commonwealth predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence. The restoration shall be consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of the waters of this Commonwealth; and (2) the application is approved by the department.”

During the initial comment period, (Administrative Record Number PA 899.05), we received multiple citizen requests to extend the comment period and to hold a public hearing on the amendment. We are reopening the public comment period to afford the public more time to comment on the amendment and to allow enough time to schedule and hold the hearing. The date, time and location for the public hearing may be found under DATES and ADDRESSES.

The hearing will be open to anyone who would like to attend and/or testify. The primary purpose of the public hearing is to obtain your comments on the proposed rule so that we can prepare a complete and objective analysis of the proposal. Those wishing to provide oral testimony need to register between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. at the hearing location. Other attendees are not required to register. Written testimony will also be accepted. The hearing officer will conduct the hearing and receive the comments submitted. Comments submitted during the hearing will be responded to in the preamble to the final rule, not at the hearing. We appreciate all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final rule will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to, and analyses of, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other State or Federal laws and regulations, data, technical literature, or relevant publications.

At the hearing, a court reporter will record and make a written record of the statements presented. This written record will be made part of the administrative record for the rule. If you have a written copy of your testimony, we encourage you to give us a copy. It will assist the court reporter in preparing the written record. Any disabled individual who needs reasonable accommodation to attend the public hearing is encouraged to contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Public hearing. Each commenter will have 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically (via email) or in hard copy form.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Tonya Blatcher at (919) 541-1929 or by email at [email protected] if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact Tonya Blatcher at (919) 541-1929 or by email at [email protected] to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations unless we receive special requests in advance. Commenters should notify Tonya Blatcher when they pre-register to speak that they will need specific equipment. If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by May 22, 2018. We may not be able to arrange for accommodations without advance notice.

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

Entities potentially affected by this proposal include the Ute Indian Tribe,1 as well as new and modified true minor sources that are in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector and are on Indian country 2 lands within the U&O Reservation. All of the Ute Indian Tribe Indian country lands of which the EPA is aware are located within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, and these amendments will apply to all such lands. To the extent that there are Ute Indian Tribe dependent Indian communities under 18 U.S.C. 1151(b) or allotted lands under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c) that are located outside the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, those lands will not be covered by these amendments.3 In addition, this proposed rule will not apply to any sources not on Indian country lands, including any areas within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation that are not Indian country lands.4

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be potentially affected by this action. To determine whether your facility could be affected by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the Federal Minor NSR Program in Indian Country and the National O&NG FIP (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49153 and 49.101, respectively). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this final rule will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home page located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr and on the tribal NSR page at https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review.

In this action, the EPA is proposing to exercise its authority, in accordance with section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA and under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11 by amending the National O&NG FIP 5 to extend it to eligible true minor oil and natural gas sources in the Indian country portion of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area, which includes making it available as a mechanism for authorizing construction in that area. (The Indian country lands within the Uinta Basin to which these amendments would apply are on the U&O Reservation.)

The National O&NG FIP provides a mechanism for authorizing construction for eligible true minor oil and natural gas sources wishing to locate or expand in areas of Indian country designated as attainment, unclassifiable and attainment/unclassifiable. The counties in the Uinta Basin are currently designated as unclassifiable with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 6 and, as such, owners/operators of eligible oil and natural gas sources on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation have been utilizing the National O&NG FIP's streamlined approach to satisfy permitting requirements since August 2, 2016, when the FIP became effective. However, the EPA has announced its intention to designate portions of the Uinta Basin, including the U&O Reservation, as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.7 8

The Uinta Basin is a petroleum producing system that contains thousands of active oil and natural gas wells, and existing oil and natural gas production activity is the primary source of the emissions of concern for air quality: volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), ozone precursors that react to form ozone in the presence of sunlight and widespread snow cover. The Uinta Basin's air quality problem is wintertime ozone caused by these existing sources' emissions. However, because the agency is under a court order to finalize the Basin's designation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS by April 30, 2018,9 and because the agency intends to designate some portions of the Basin as nonattainment, including portions of the U&O Reservation, under the National O&G FIP, in its current form, the Indian country portions of the Basin (U&O Reservation) will fall out of that FIP's coverage. Thus, the area will lack a streamlined mechanism to authorize construction of true minor new and modified oil and natural gas sources. This will immediately cause a disparity in the regulatory landscape facing such activity in the affected area, as compared to all other areas of Indian country that will remain covered by the FIP—even though the Basin's air quality problem that drives the impending nonattainment designation will not manifest until the winter.

With this proposed action, the EPA is proposing to ensure that the National O&NG FIP's requirements to comply with eight federal rules (and the mechanism for authorizing construction) will continue to apply on the U&O Reservation, recognizing that the geographically limited extension of the National O&NG FIP to the area is occurring while the EPA moves quickly to complete a separate rulemaking to further address the air quality problem on the U&O Reservation.

The separate EPA rulemaking 10 addressing air quality is a reservation-specific FIP action that will contain requirements to reduce ozone-forming emissions from new, modified and existing oil and natural gas sources on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation. The rulemaking will seek to achieve three goals for the Indian country portion of the Uinta Basin: (1) Clean air; (2) continued, uninterrupted development of the oil and natural gas resources; and (3) consistent CAA regulatory requirements between Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation and lands under state of Utah jurisdiction. Through that rulemaking, the EPA will address the Uinta Basin's particular situation in an area-specific manner; this proposal today seeks to bridge the gap in authority that the nonattainment designation will cause during the interim period where the designation will be in place, but the environmental needs requiring area-specific treatment have not yet materialized.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) is part of the foundation for the minor NSR program, and it requires states to submit plans that include programs for the regulation of “the modification and construction of any stationary source.” 11 CAA section 110(c) authorizes the EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan in the absence of a satisfactory state plan. CAA section 301(a) generally authorizes the EPA to prescribe regulations as are necessary to carry out its functions under the Act.

Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in the same manner as states and directs the EPA to promulgate regulations specifying those provisions of the CAA for which such treatment is appropriate. (CAA sections 301(d)(1) and (2)). It also authorizes the EPA, in circumstances in which the EPA determines that the treatment of Indian tribes as identical to states is inappropriate or administratively infeasible, to provide by regulation other means by which the EPA will directly administer the CAA. (CAA section 301(d)(4)). Acting principally pursuant to that authority, on February 12, 1998,12 the EPA promulgated what we refer to as the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR). (40 CFR 49.1-49.11). In the TAR, we determined that it was appropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as states for all CAA and regulatory purposes except a list of specified CAA provisions and implementing regulations thereunder. (40 CFR 49.4).

The TAR preamble clarified that by including CAA section 110(c)(1) on the § 49.4 “exception” list, “EPA is not relieved of its general obligation under the CAA to ensure the protection of air quality throughout the nation, including throughout Indian country.” The preamble confirmed that the “EPA will continue to be subject to the basic requirement to issue a FIP for affected tribal areas within some reasonable time.” 13 The TAR includes a provision that provides the EPA the authority to promulgate a Federal implementation plan in the absence of a satisfactory tribal plan. (40 CFR 49.11(a)).

On August 21, 2006, the EPA proposed the regulation: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country” (commonly referred to as the Federal Indian Country NSR rule).14 With this proposed regulation, the EPA proposed to protect air quality in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, by establishing a FIP program to regulate, among other matters, the modification and construction of minor stationary sources consistent with the authorities and requirements of sections 301 and 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. We refer to this part of the Federal Indian Country NSR rule as the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. Under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, we proposed to provide a mechanism for issuing pre-construction permits for the construction of new minor sources and certain modifications of major and minor sources in Indian country. We promulgated a final rule on July 1, 2011,15 and the rule became effective on August 30, 2011. The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule applies to new and modified minor stationary sources and to minor modifications at existing major stationary sources located in Indian country where there is no EPA-approved program in place for all new and modified minor sources and minor modifications at major sources located in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

Tribes can elect to develop and implement their own EPA-approved program under the TAR,16 but they are not required to do so.17 In the absence of an approved program, the EPA implements this program. Alternatively, tribes can take delegation of the program from the EPA to assist the EPA with administration of the federal program, including acting as the Reviewing Authority for the EPA.

Under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, initially beginning September 2, 2014,18 any new stationary source, that will emit, or will have the potential to emit, a regulated NSR pollutant in amounts that will be: (a) Equal to or greater than the minor NSR thresholds established in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule; but (b) less than the amount that would qualify the source as a major source or a major modification for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment major NSR programs, must apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit before beginning construction of the new source. Likewise, any existing stationary source (minor or major) must apply for and obtain a minor NSR permit before beginning construction (a physical or operational change) that will increase the allowable emissions of the stationary source by more than the specified threshold amounts, if the change does not otherwise trigger the permitting requirements of the PSD or nonattainment major NSR program(s).19 The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule also created a framework for the EPA to streamline the issuance of pre-construction permits to true minor sources by using general permits.

In promulgating the National O&NG FIP we determined that it was appropriate to promulgate a FIP to remedy an existing regulatory gap with respect to oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing operations in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule where there is no EPA-approved plan in place. The authority that underlies and supports the National O&NG FIP (as well as the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR FIP) also authorizes this proposed action, which simply would amend the National O&NG FIP. In summary, just as we had the authority to establish the National O&NG FIP, we believe that we have authority under the CAA (sections 301(a), 301(d)(4) and 110(a)(2)(C)) and regulatory authority under the TAR (40 CFR 49.1-49.11) to carry out this action and extend the applicability of the National O&NG FIP to the Indian country portion of the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area. As described above, the CAA provides broad authority to manage air resources throughout Indian country, regardless of area designation under the CAA. This is well established authority and we have exercised it on many occasions, including to regulate activity in areas of Indian country designated nonattainment. Foremost, the Agency is responsible for ensuring that NAAQS are achieved throughout Indian country and to implement CAA programs in Indian country that tribal governments do not elect to implement. This proposed action is consistent with and supported by our successful use of these authorities in these prior actions.

Finally, in light of the intended, pending final designation of nonattainment for the Uinta Basin for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, this action is consistent with the CAA general provisions for nonattainment areas in CAA sections 172(b) and 172(c), which include references to CAA section 110(a)(2), as well as the major source nonattainment NSR permitting program in CAA section 173. This proposed action is consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires that implementation plans include programs for all areas (attainment and nonattainment) that provide for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source “as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved” for the reasons discussed elsewhere in this document. In addition, CAA sections 172 and 173 provide that programs relating to permits to construct for major sources should take into consideration emissions from existing sources, as well as new or modified sources that “are not major emitting facilities,” i.e., new or modified minor sources. Thus, the emissions from minor sources covered by this action would be considered in CAA section 173 major source permitting actions in the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area, though they are not directly subject to regulation under CAA sections 172 and 173.20

In the preamble to the final National O&NG FIP, we made clear that we could extend the geographic coverage of the FIP to nonattainment areas, provided that we also addressed existing, new and modified sources in a separate, reservation-specific FIP. We stated the need to develop area-specific plans if and when areas of Indian country become nonattainment. Further, we specifically noted concern about the air quality problem in the Uinta Basin and indicated our intent to propose a separate reservation-specific FIP to address the issue.

The extension of the National O&NG FIP proposed in this document will, if finalized, provide coverage under the National O&NG FIP for Indian country portion of the intended Uinta basin Ozone Nonattainment Area after EPA's intended designation of portions of the Uinta Basin as being in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which the EPA intends to issue by April 30, 2018. We indicated in the preamble to the final National O&NG FIP that we intended “to potentially apply the national FIP's requirements as appropriate to nonattainment areas where the EPA has established a separate, area-specific FIP.”21 The EPA does intend to do just that for the Indian country portion of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area, but in the meantime we are proposing this action. The agency believes that this approach is reasonable in light of the following considerations.

First, as noted above, the EPA is moving quickly to undertake a separate rulemaking to establish a U&O Reservation-specific FIP for the area. We intend to complete this other action—the U&O Reservation-specific FIP—before the start of the 2018-2019 winter ozone season in the Uinta Basin. Our intent is for the FIP to contain VOC emissions control requirements that will apply to existing, new and modified minor oil and natural gas sources on the U&O Reservation. Our intent is for some of those requirements (i.e., VOC requirements on new and modified minor sources) to apply before the start of the 2018-2019 winter ozone season on the U&O Reservation, by which time we expect the final U&O Reservation-specific FIP to be effective with the requirements on existing oil and natural gas minor sources to follow. It should also be noted that preliminary monitoring data from the current 2017-2018 winter ozone season from across the region show values well below the 2015 ozone NAAQS.22

Second, the relatively short, initial period of time before a U&O Reservation-specific FIP is in place during which the National O&NG FIP will apply to the U&O Reservation (as part of the expected Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area), will be before the Uinta Basin winter ozone season. As noted above, the Uinta Basin does not have a summertime ozone air quality problem. We are, therefore, confident that—with this action—the eight emissions standards that apply to oil and natural gas sources under the National O&NG FIP will continue to be adequately protective of air quality in the U&O Reservation while we complete the separate rulemaking to establish a U&O Reservation-specific FIP, all of which we expect to occur before the start of the 2018-2019 winter ozone season in the Uinta Basin.

Finally, the two-part approach we are taking is similar to the process that occurs under the CAA when an area within a state is designated nonattainment: A plan addressing the air quality problem is not due to the EPA until a period of time after an area is designated nonattainment. Thus, the approach we are presenting here, we believe, is reasonable.

We also believe that this action—along with the EPA's related, forthcoming action to reduce oil and natural gas source emissions in the area—will address the air quality problem on the U&O Reservation, while maintaining a mechanism for authorizing construction that helps ensure continued oil and natural gas production on the U&O Reservation in compliance with the eight federal rules that apply to true minor oil and natural gas sources under the FIP.23 Based on feedback from Ute Indian Tribe leadership, continued oil and natural gas production is important for the maintenance of the local tribal economy, as the Ute Indian Tribe is dependent upon oil and natural gas revenue for its economic prosperity. Because the action we propose today will avoid disruption of that activity during the period before the wintertime ozone problem manifests, while the EPA works to promulgate an area-specific protective measure to address that problem, the agency believes this course of action will appropriately protect the Basin's environment without causing unnecessary disruption to its economy.

We are proposing that the extension of the National O&NG FIP to eligible true minor oil and natural gas sources in the Indian country portion of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area be permanent. However, we also are seeking comment on whether, instead, it should be temporary and expire before the onset of the 2018-2019 ozone season. We seek comment on whether the extension should be temporary, in light of the facts surrounding the Uinta Basin's situation as described above and with respect to: (1) This proposed action, (2) its impending nonattainment designation, and (3) the forthcoming area-specific FIP.

In particular, we seek comment on how the EPA can protect air quality on the U&O Reservation and ensure continued oil and natural gas development under two general scenarios. In the first scenario, we finalize the extension as permanent, as proposed, but we do not complete the U&O Reservation-specific FIP by the start of the 2018-2019 Uinta Basin winter ozone season. A concern may be that continuing to allow the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area to be covered by the National O&NG FIP in the absence of any emissions reductions that may be associated with the U&O Reservation-specific FIP. We seek comment relating to this scenario, including on what the Agency could do in this action, when finalized, to mitigate possible impacts.

In another scenario, we, instead finalize the extension as temporary and we set it to expire at the end of calendar year 2018, say, but we do not complete the U&O Reservation-specific FIP by the start of the 2018-2019 Uinta Basin winter ozone season. Here, the concern would be the effect on oil and natural gas activity on the U&O Reservation, if the area loses coverage under the National O&NG FIP. In the absence of other measures, sources in the Indian country portion of Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area (the U&O Reservation) would need to obtain source-specific minor source permits in order to construct and operate. Oil and natural gas owners and operators in the U&O reservation and the Ute Indian Tribe have significant concerns about delays associated with this type of permitting. As noted above, the Ute Indian Tribe relies on revenue from oil and natural gas activity for its livelihood and has expressed concerns about the lengthier timeframes associated with EPA approvals under source-specific permitting. We seek comment relating to this scenario, including on what the Agency could do to mitigate possible impacts.

As noted above, CAA section 301(d)(4) authorizes the EPA to issue regulations directly administering, in Indian country, provisions of the Act. Exercising its authority, including its authority under 301(d)(4), the EPA promulgated the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, a type of FIP. We identified a regulatory gap that could have the effect of adversely impacting air quality due to the lack of approved minor NSR permit programs to regulate construction of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The EPA promulgated the FIP to ensure that air resources are protected by establishing a preconstruction permitting program to regulate emission increases resulting from construction and modification activities that are not already regulated by the major NSR permitting programs.

Following the issuance of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR FIP, EPA proposed the National O&NG FIP.24 Because there were no currently approved TIPs specifically applying to the issuance of general permits with respect to the reduction of emissions related to oil and natural gas production facilities, we proposed a FIP to protect air quality in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The National O&NG FIP was published in final form on June 3, 2016.25 The National O&NG FIP adopted legally and practicably enforceable requirements to control and reduce air emissions from oil and natural gas production.

The National O&NG FIP was developed to protect air quality in Indian country due to the impact of new true minor sources and minor modifications at existing true minor sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector that are locating or expanding in an Indian reservation or in another area of Indian country over which a tribe, or the EPA, has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction. The FIP applies to new and modified true minor sources that are located or expanding in such areas of Indian country designated as attainment, unclassifiable or attainment/unclassifiable. It currently does not apply to new and modified true minor sources that are located or expanding in such areas of Indian country designated nonattainment. However, this action proposes to extend the National O&NG FIP's geographic coverage to the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area. The FIP does not apply to minor modification of major sources; such sources are required to obtain a source-specific permit prior to beginning construction, per the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

The National O&NG FIP fulfills the EPA's obligation under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule to issue minor source NSR pre-construction permits to oil and natural gas sources. The National O&NG FIP provides a streamlined, alternative approach that fulfills the permitting requirement, while also ensuring air quality protection through requirements that are unambiguous and legally and practicably enforceable. The FIP approach is also transparent to the public: It is clear to the public what requirements will apply. The FIP reduces burden for sources and the Reviewing Authority and minimizes potential delays in new construction due to compliance with the minor NSR permitting obligation. True minor sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector are required to comply with the FIP instead of obtaining a source-specific minor source permit, unless a source chooses to opt out of the FIP and to obtain a source-specific minor NSR permit instead.

Under the FIP, we require owners/operators of oil and natural gas production facilities and natural gas processing plants to comply with eight federal standards to reduce emissions of VOC, NOX, SO2, particulate matter (PM, PM10, PM2.5), hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide and various sulfur compounds from the following units/processes in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector: Compression ignition and spark ignition engines; process heaters; combustion turbines; fuel storage tanks; glycol dehydrators; completion of hydraulically fractured oil and natural gas wells; reciprocating and centrifugal compressors (except those located at well sites); pneumatic controllers; pneumatic pumps; storage vessels; and fugitive emissions from well sites, compressor stations and natural gas processing plants. The oil and natural gas FIP requires compliance with five NSPS and three national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).26 These regulations are listed in Table 2.

The eight regulations and the provisions of each that are included in the oil and natural gas FIP are discussed in more detail in this section. The FIP's requirements include emission standards (that contain emission limitations), monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting. For purposes of the National O&NG FIP, true minor sources must comply with these standards, as they currently exist or as amended in the future, except for those provisions that we specifically exclude under the National O&NG FIP (unless the source opts out of the FIP and obtains a source-specific permit or is otherwise required to obtain a source-specific permit by the Reviewing Authority). Sources subject to the National O&NG FIP would be subject to any future changes to the eight underlying EPA standards only if they undergo a future minor modification as a true minor source and would otherwise be subject to those future changes. (The National O&NG FIP does not change the applicability of the specified standards, nor does it relieve sources subject to the standards from complying with them, independently of the National O&NG FIP.)

In the response to comments section of the preamble to the final rule establishing the National O&NG FIP, we addressed some issues that are related to this proposed action.28 We provided that the FIP does not apply in a nonattainment area, but that it could, if we addressed existing sources in such an area.29 We stated that, parallel to designating such an area is designated as nonattainment, we would promulgate an area-specific FIP for existing sources if we determine that it is “necessary or appropriate” to do so pursuant to the TAR.30 We received comments concerning extending the geographic reach of the National O&NG FIP to nonattainment areas. Commenters were concerned with how permitting requirements would be satisfied in such areas during the transition period between the time an area is designated as nonattainment and the time a separate, area-specific FIP to control emissions adequately in such a nonattainment area is in place. The Uinta Basin was given as an example of where the absence of a streamlined means to satisfy permitting requirements during this transition period could pose problems. In response to the comments, we stated our intent to potentially apply the National O&NG FIP's requirements as appropriate to nonattainment areas, where the EPA has established a separate, area-specific FIP. As discussed earlier, our proposed approach here is slightly different, in that the extension of the National O&NG FIP to the Uinta Basin nonattainment area may precede the separate, area-specific FIP for that area. However, our plan is for the separate, area-specific FIP to be in place before the next winter ozone season. Because, as discussed above, ozone problems in the Uinta Basin are limited to the winter season, we believe this approach is appropriately protective of air quality, without unduly impeding oil and natural gas activity in Indian Country.

In addition, we received comments recommending that we add monitoring and modeling requirements to the National O&NG FIP. Our response to those comments included a discussion about the state of air quality in areas of Indian country with oil and natural gas activity. With respect to air quality in areas of Indian country with oil and natural gas development, we noted in June 2016 when we promulgated the National O&NG FIP that we were not seeing widespread air quality problems in Indian country due to oil and natural gas activity. We mentioned in June 2016 that, in all of Indian country, only two counties in the Uinta Basin (including land within the U&O Reservation) had air quality problems due to oil and natural gas activity. That is still the case and is discussed further in Section III.C. We had (and still have) sufficient concerns about the air quality impacts from existing sources in that area that we intend to soon propose a separate reservation-specific FIP, which, as noted above, is expected to be in place before next winter's ozone season.

On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated revised primary and secondary ozone NAAQS.31 The EPA strengthened both standards to a level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA, whenever the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA must promulgate designations for all areas of the country for that NAAQS. The EPA must complete this process within 2 years of promulgating the NAAQS, unless the Administrator has insufficient information to make the initial designations decisions in that time frame. In such circumstances, the EPA may take up to 1 additional year to complete the designations. Under CAA section 107(d), states were required to submit area designation recommendations to the EPA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS no later than 1 year following promulgation of the standards (i.e., by October 1, 2016).

On September 29, 2016, the state of Utah provided designation recommendations for counties in Utah based on air quality data from 2013-2015. The state recommended a designation of nonattainment for townships in the counties of Duchesne and Uintah under state air jurisdiction that are at and below the 6,000-ft elevation. On February 26, 2018, the state of Utah provided further input on the nonattainment boundaries. On September 27, 2016, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation recommended that the Indian country area at an unspecified distance around the Ouray ozone monitor in the Uinta Basin be designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on air quality data from 2013-2015. However, the Tribe recommended a designation of attainment for all of Indian country in the Uinta Basin, assuming the EPA concurs with an exceptional event package submitted to the agency (by the Tribe) covering two days in June 2015.

On December 20, 2017, in our response to the state and tribal designation boundary recommendations, we indicated our intent to modify the state's and tribe's recommendations for the Uinta Basin area. We provided the intended boundary in a Technical Support Document.32 In short, the EPA's boundary for the intended nonattainment area for the Uinta Basin includes both state and Indian country lands within portions of Duchesne and Uintah Counties. A comment period followed the EPA's statement on its intended nonattainment boundaries for the Uinta Basin and other areas.33

This action proposes to amend the National O&NG FIP to extend its application to eligible true minor oil and natural gas sources in the Indian country portion of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area, which includes its mechanism for authorizing construction. We also are proposing to make a technical correction to fix a typographical error in § 49.101(c).

First, this action proposes to add a new subparagraph to the CFR, to be codified at § 49.101(e). In the new subparagraph, we are proposing to narrowly extend the geographic scope of the National O&NG FIP to cover eligible true minor oil and natural gas sources wishing to locate or expand in the Indian country portion (U&O Reservation) of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area.34 This proposed extension of coverage to this one nonattainment area does not alter the FIP's current geographic coverage of attainment, unclassifiable and attainment/unclassifiable areas with regard to the rest of Indian country across the nation. The proposed, geographically limited extension is in addition to the current coverage. Under this proposed amendment, true minor oil and natural gas sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector wishing to locate or expand in the Indian country portion of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area would also have to meet the criteria under § 49.101(b)(1) to qualify, except for § 49.101(b)(1)(v). Section 49.101(b)(1)(v) contains the requirement governing the primary geographic scope of the FIP and not its limited extension to the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area, and, thus, would not be relevant for such sources. In other words, the new paragraph § 49.101(e) would displace existing § 49.101(b)(1)(v) for Indian country within the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area—and only for that area of Indian country.

To accomplish this extension, it is also necessary to define the boundaries of the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area to which the National O&G FIP would apply if the EPA finalizes this proposed rule. To accomplish this, the EPA proposes to incorporate the boundaries for the intended nonattainment area for the Uinta Basin, or areas within the Uinta Basin, as defined at 40 CFR part 81, Designations of Areas for Air Quality Purposes.35 The regulatory and other processes that have occurred within and outside the EPA and between the EPA and state and tribal governments govern the development and final decision on the boundaries for the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area and not this action.

Second, this action proposes a technical correction to § 49.101(c), which currently reads: “When must I comply with §§ 49.101 through 49.105? You must comply with §§ 49.101 through 49.101 on or after October 3, 2016.” This provision is supposed to reference §§ 49.101 through 49.105, as the title indicates. We are proposing to correct it to read: “When must I comply with §§ 49.101 through 49.105? You must comply with §§ 49.101 through 49.105 on or after October 3, 2016.” The EPA believes that this is a correction of a self-evident scrivener's error and does not constitute a substantive change of the existing regulatory provision.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by extending the streamlined authorization-to-construct method for true minor new and modified oil and natural gas sources. The streamlined authorization, which was established by the EPA in 2016, reduces the resource burden on the permitting authority and regulated community associated with submitting and reviewing permit applications for these sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas. This action proposes to extend the streamlined authorization to the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003.36 This action amends the National O&NG FIP which provides a mechanism for authorizing construction for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector locating or located in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule to satisfy the requirements of that rule other than by obtaining a source-specific minor source permit. Because it substitutes for a source-specific permit, which would contain information collection activities covered by the Information Collection Request for Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule issued in July 2011, neither the proposed amendments nor the National O&NG FIP impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal government or the private sector. In fact, the proposed amendments would have the effect of reducing paperwork burden on sources wishing to locate or expand in the Indian country portion of the Uinta Basin as the amendments provide an alternative to source-specific permitting for such sources.

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. The EPA analyzed the impact on small entities of streamlined permitting under the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule 37 and determined that it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (By allowing sources to avoid having to obtain source-specific permits, this proposed action also would relieve regulatory burden.) This action merely implements a particular aspect of the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandates, 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 government or the private sector. It simply modifies one option for sources to comply with the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule. The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule itself, not this proposed action, imposes the obligation that true minor sources in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule obtain a minor source NSR permit prior to commencing construction. This proposed action merely applies the National O&NG FIP to the U&O Reservation as part of the Uinta Basin Nonattainment Area, which includes a streamlined mechanism for authorizing construction for meeting the obligation of the Federal Indian Country minor NSR rule.

This action does not have federalism implications. It would 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.

This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011),38 the EPA offered consultation on the concerns addressed in this proposed action, which include the lack of a streamlined permitting for the U&O Reservation should the area be designated nonattainment. The EPA conducted outreach on the issues addressed by the previous rule via ongoing monthly meetings with tribal environmental professionals in the development of the past proposed action,39 and further as follows via: (1) Tribal consultation with the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee on July 22, 2015; December 17, 2016; November 13, 2017; and March 22, 2018, regarding options that the EPA considered in addressing the Uinta Basin air quality concerns; (2) stakeholder meetings where the Tribe was included and participated in emissions contributions discussions specific to the EPA's strategy for addressing the Uinta Basin air quality concerns; (3) ongoing stakeholder working group meetings; and (4) tribally-convened stakeholder meetings on March 22, 2017, and June 1-2, 2017.

This action reflects tribal concerns about, and priorities for, developing a streamlined approach for permitting true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule in the intended Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area. As these amendments, if finalized, are implemented, we will continue to provide regular outreach to tribes to ensure we address issues concerning the FIP if and when they arise. The EPA is available for consultation with any interested tribe.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards.

As discussed in Section II.B, we believe that this action is reasonable in light of our intended, separate rulemaking to establish a reservation-specific FIP and the expected short period of time before these requirements would apply. Therefore, the EPA believes the amendments in this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. Through these amendments, we seek: (1) To extend geographically the National O&NG FIP and its mechanism for authorizing construction that effectively provides a streamlined method for implementing a pre-construction permitting program for true minor sources in the oil and natural gas sector in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule, and (2) to pursue an approach that enables a streamlined process, which helps promote economic development by minimizing delays in new construction.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 49 is proposed to be amended as follows:

The revision and addition read as follows: