[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78149-78154]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26865]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699; FRL-9954-95-OAR]

California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards;
Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent
Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for a waiver of Clean
Air Act preemption for amendments made in 2013 (``2013 HD OBD
Amendments'') to its Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for
2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engine (HD OBD Requirements)
and to its Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System
Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines
(``HD OBD Enforcement Regulation''), collectively referred to herein as
HD OBD Regulations. EPA also confirms that certain of the 2013 HD OBD
Amendments are within the scope of the previous waiver for the HD OBD
Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement Regulation. This decision is issued
under the authority of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act'').

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by January 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government
working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
The email address for the Air and Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the fax
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through the federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are
links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited
in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CARB initially adopted the HD OBD Requirements in December 2005.
The HD OBD Requirements require manufacturers to install compliant HD
OBD systems with diesel and gasoline powered engines used in vehicles

having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. HD OBD
systems monitor emission-related components and systems for proper
operation and for deterioration or malfunctions that cause emissions to
exceed specific thresholds.
    EPA issued a waiver under section 209(b) of the CAA for the 2005 HD
OBD Requirements in 2008.\1\ CARB subsequently updated the HD OBD
Requirements to align the HD OBD Requirements with OBD II Requirements
for medium-duty vehicles, and adopted the HD OBD Enforcement
Regulation, in 2010. EPA issued California a waiver for the 2010 HD OBD
Regulations in December 2012.\2\ CARB subsequently amended the HD OBD
Regulations again in 2013. CARB formally adopted the 2013 HD OBD
Amendments on June 26, 2013, and they became operative under state law
on July 31, 2013. The HD OBD Requirements are codified at title 13,
California Code of Regulations, section 1971.1. The HD OBD Enforcement
Regulation is codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations,
section 1971.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 52042 (September 8, 2008).
    \2\ 77 FR 73459 (December 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated February 12, 2014, \3\ CARB submitted to EPA a
request for a determination that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments are within
the scope of the previous HD OBD waiver or, alternatively, that EPA
grant California a waiver of preemption for the 2013 HD OBD Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CARB, ``Request for Waiver Action Pursuant to Clean Air Act
Section 209(b) for California's Heavy-Duty Engine On-Board
Diagnostic System Requirements (HD OBD) and On-Board Diagnostic
System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II),'' February 12, 2014
(``California Waiver Request Support Document'') See
www.regulations.gov Web site, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-
0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's February 12, 2014 submission provides analysis and evidence
to support its finding that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments satisfy the CAA
section 209(b) criteria and that a waiver of preemption should be
granted. CARB briefly summarizes the 2013 HD OBD Amendments as
accomplishing the following primary purposes:

``accelerate the start date for OBD system implementation on
alternate-fueled engines from the 2020 model year to the 2018 model
year, relax some requirements for OBD systems on heavy-duty hybrid
vehicles for the 2013 through 2015 model years, relax malfunction
thresholds for three major emission control systems (particulate
matter (PM) filters, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) catalysts,
and NOx sensors) on diesel engines until the 2016 model
year, delay monitoring requirements for some diesel-related
components until 2015 to provide further lead time for emission
control strategies to stabilize, and clarify requirements for
several monitors and standardization.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ California Waiver Request Support Document, at 11-12.

    The 2013 HD OBD Amendments include several dozen amendments
overall.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The many 2013 HD OBD Amendments are individually summarized
by CARB in the California Waiver Request Support Document, from
pages 11-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Principles Governing this Review

A. Scope of Review

    Section 209(a) of the CAA provides:

    ``No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this
part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other
approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor
vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the
initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor
vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a).

    Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an
opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the
prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards
(other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30,
1966, if the state determines that its state standards will be, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards.\7\ However, no such waiver shall be
granted if the Administrator finds that: (A) The protectiveness
determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious; (B) the state
does not need such state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or (C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA section 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). California is
the only state that meets section 209(b)(1)'s requirement for
obtaining a waiver. See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).
    \8\ CAA section 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Key principles governing this review are that EPA should limit its
inquiry to the specific findings identified in section 209(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, and that EPA will give substantial deference to the
policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In
previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended the
Agency's review of California's decision-making to be narrow. EPA has
rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for
denying a waiver:

    ``The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be
denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can
properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California
requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in
California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is
otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not
legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the
California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more
stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it
may result in some further reduction in air pollution in
California.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State
Standards,'' 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more
stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the
1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California
must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\10\ Thus, EPA's
consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning a waiver
decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may
be considered under section 209(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d
1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (``MEMA I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in
MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of
showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have
been met:

    ``[T]he language of the statute and its legislative history
indicate that California's regulations, and California's
determinations that they must comply with the statute, when
presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver
requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever
attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings
at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver
request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the
waiver request should be denied.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MEMA I, note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a
reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the
waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver

decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.'' ' \12\ Therefore,
the Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 1126.
    \13\ Id. at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained
that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

``[. . .]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of
materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence
against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties
favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual
circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the
waiver.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 1122.

    In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under
section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an
``accompanying enforcement procedure.'' Those findings involve: (1)
Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior
protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2)
whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The
principles set forth by the court are similarly applicable to an EPA
review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The
court instructed that ``the standard of proof must take account of the
nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it
therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this
standard operates in every waiver decision.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the
Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be ``clear
and compelling evidence'' to show that proposed enforcement procedures
undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.\16\ The court
noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional
intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in
setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and
welfare.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures,
there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis
would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past
waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two
areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the
existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the
standards are technologically feasible--Congress intended that the
standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.''
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., ``California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,'' 40 FR 23102 (May
28, 1975), at 23103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of
Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed
criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess
state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver
decision:

    ``It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a
California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to
adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator.. . .
Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits
from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any
regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I
believe I am required to give very substantial deference to
California's judgments on this score.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 FR 23102, 23103-04 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of
the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional
intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on
``ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy'' to
California's judgment.\20\ This interpretation is supported by relevant
discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the
CAA. Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 amendments to
restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected instead to
expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor
vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is
intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver
provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that
is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting
the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public
welfare.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 (January 13,
1993).
    \21\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th
Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's
Request

    On November 20, 2014, EPA published a notice of opportunity for
public hearing and comment on California's waiver request. In that
notice, EPA requested comments on whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments
should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or whether
they should be considered under the full waiver criteria, and on
whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments meet the criteria for a full
waiver.\22\ EPA additionally provided an opportunity for any individual
to request a public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 79 FR 69104 (November 20, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received no comments and no requests for a public hearing.
Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.

III. Discussion

A. Within-the-Scope Determination

    CARB proposes that certain of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments meet all
three within-the-scope criteria, i.e. that the amendments: (1) Do not
undermine California's previous protectiveness determination that its
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as comparable federal standards; (2) do not affect
the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the
Act, and (3) do not raise any new issue affecting the prior waiver.
CARB identifies the amendments it considers to be within the scope of
the prior waiver in Attachments 2, 3, and 4 of the California Waiver
Request Support Document.\23\ CARB does acknowledge that a number of
the 2013 HD OBD Amendments potentially establish new or more stringent
requirements, and thus will need a new waiver.\24\ These were
identified by CARB in Attachments 1 and 4 of its Waiver Request Support
Document.\25\ EPA must also assess

whether the HD OBD Amendments that have been identified by CARB as
requirements within the scope of the prior waiver can be confirmed by
EPA to not need a new waiver. If EPA determines that the amendments do
not meet the requirements for a within-the-scope confirmation, we will
then consider whether the amendments satisfy the criteria for full
waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at Attachment 2 (``2013 Amendments to HD OBD and
OBD II Requirements That Relax Existing Requirements''), at
Attachment 3 (``2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements
That Clarify Existing Requirements''), and at Attachment 4 (the
portion identified as ``Amendments that Relax of Clarify Existing
Requirements'').
    \24\ See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at 42-43.
    \25\ See Attachment 1 (``2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II
Requirements That Potentially Establish New or More Stringent
Requirements'') of the California Waiver Request Support Document
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003, at 72-73], and Attachment 4 (the portion
identified as ``Amendments that Establish New or More Stringent
Requirements'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described previously, EPA specifically invited comment on
whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments are within the scope of the prior
waiver. We received no comments disputing CARB's contentions on this
issue.
    With regard to the first of the within-the-scope criteria, CARB
notes its finding in Resolution 12-29 that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments
do not undermine California's previous protectiveness determination
that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of
public health and welfare as comparable federal standards.\26\ CARB
maintains that its HD OBD Regulations are more stringent than
comparable federal regulations.\27\ As there are no comments and EPA is
not aware of evidence to the contrary, EPA finds that the 2013 HD OBD
Amendments do not undermine the previous protectiveness determination
made with regard to California's HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD
Enforcement Regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at 43, 51, and Attachment 14 (CARB Resolution 12-
29, dated August 23, 2012).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the second within-the-scope prong (affecting
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act), CARB argues that the 2013
HD OBD Amendments listed in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 as relaxing or
clarifying existing requirements do not affect the consistency of
California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act. For these
amendments, CARB states that there is sufficient lead time to permit
the development of technology necessary to meet the standards, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance, since the
amendments merely relax or clarify existing standards, and that
manufacturers can still meet both the state and federal test
requirements with one test vehicle or engine.\28\ California contends
that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments (other than those specifically listed
in Attachments 1 and 4 as being otherwise) do not create new or more
stringent requirements.\29\ In addition, regarding the third within-
the-scope prong, CARB argues that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments (other
than those identified in Attachments 1 and 4 as establishing new or
more stringent standards) do not raise any new issue affecting the
prior waiver.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at 45-46, 51-52.
    \29\ See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at 50-54.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite CARB's contentions on the second and third within-the-scope
prongs, it was self-evident in EPA's review of the record that some of
the amendments identified by CARB as being within the scope of the
prior waiver instead require a new waiver because the amendments raise
new issues regarding the waiver and may affect the consistency of
California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act. As stated in
the background section, while the burden of proof rests with opponents
of a waiver request (and there were none in this case), EPA retains the
burden ``to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the
record'' before it. In evaluating the record, it is clear that some of
the 2013 HD OBD Amendments listed by CARB as clarifying or relaxing
existing requirements arguably provide new or more stringent
requirements that must be met by manufacturers. Specifically, in
addition to the amendments listed by CARB in Attachment 1 to its Waiver
Request Support Document, EPA notes that the following additional 2013
HD OBD Amendments also provide new or more stringent requirements and
thus require a new waiver:
    [In the order presented in the Waiver Request Support Document,
Attachment 2]
    Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E): Denominator Specifications [providing
new criteria to increment the denominator]
    Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(J): Denominator Specifications for Hybrid
Vehicles [providing new criteria to increment the denominator for
hybrid vehicles]
    Section 1971.1(e)(8.2.4): NMHC Conversion Monitoring [requiring
monitoring of capability to generate desired feed gas]
    Section 1971.1(e)(9.2.2)(A): NOx and PM Sensor
Malfunction Criteria [requiring fault before emissions are twice the
NMHC standard]
    Section 1971.1(e)(9.3.1): NOx and PM Sensor Monitoring
Conditions [requiring track and report of ``monitoring capability''
monitors]
    Section 1971.1(g)(3.2.2)(B)(ii)d: Diesel Idle Control System
Monitoring [requiring manufacturer to consider known, not given,
operating conditions]
    [In the order presented in the Waiver Request Support Document,
Attachment 3]
    Section 1971.1(c): ``Alternate-fueled engine'' [new scope of
exempted vehicles]
    Section 1971.1(c): ``Ignition Cycle'' and ``Propulsion System
Active'' [new specific requirements for hybrid vehicles]
    Section 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(A) and (2.3.2)(A): MIL Extinguishing and
Fault Code Erasure Protocol [requiring MIL to be extinguished after
three driving cycles]
    Section 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(C)(ii)(b).3 and (2.3.2)(D)(ii)b.3: Erasing
a Permanent Fault Code [requiring erasure of fault code if not detected
again for 40 warm-up cycles]
    Section 1971.1(d)(5.5.2)(B): Ignition Cycle Counter [requiring
counter to be incremented when hybrid vehicle propulsion system is
active for minimum time period]
    Section 1971.1(f)(7.1): Evaporative System Monitoring [requiring
evaporative system monitoring for alternative-fueled engines]
    Section 1971.1(h)(3.2): SAE J1939 Communication Protocol
[prohibiting use of 250 kbps baud rate version for 2016 model year]
    Section 1971.1(h)(4.1): Readiness status [removing exceptions
allowing readiness status to say ``complete'' under certain conditions
without completion of monitoring]
    Section 1971.1(h)(4.2.2) and (h)(4.2.3)(E): Data Stream [requiring
additional information in data stream]
    Section 1971.1(h)(4.5.5): Test Results when Fault Memory Cleared
[requiring report of non-zero values corresponding to ``test not
complete'']
    Section 1971.1(i)(3.1.2): Diesel Misfire Monitor [requiring
continuous misfire monitoring for diesel engines and demonstration
testing for the misfire monitor]
    Section 1971.1(i)(3.2.1): Gasoline Fuel System [requiring
demonstration testing of air-fuel cylinder imbalance monitor]
    [In the order presented in the Waiver Request Support Document,
Attachment 4]
    Section 1971.5(d)(3)(A)(iii) [adding mandatory recall criteria for
diesel misfire monitors]
    Section 1971.5(d)(3)(A)(vi) [adding mandatory recall criteria for
PM filter monitors]
    The amendments listed above combined with those listed in
Attachment 1 to Waiver Request

Support Document will hereafter be referred to as 2013 HD OBD New or
Stricter Requirements. For the remaining 2013 HD OBD Amendments that
are not listed above (i.e., the ``Relaxed 2013 HD OBD Requirements''),
no evidence or comment was received indicating that the Relaxed 2013 HD
OBD Requirements are not within the scope of the prior waiver, nor was
there anything self-evident from the record indicating otherwise.
Therefore, EPA cannot find that the Relaxed 2013 HD OBD Requirements
either affect the consistency of California's requirements with section
202(a) of the Act or raise a new issue affecting the prior waiver.
California has thus met the within-the-scope criteria, and EPA confirms
that the Relaxed 2013 HD OBD Requirements are within the scope of the
previous waiver of the HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement
Regulation.

B. New Waiver Determination

a. Whether California's Protectiveness Determination was Arbitrary and
Capricious
    As stated in the background, section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act sets
forth the first of the three criteria governing a new waiver request--
whether California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination
that its state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards. Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to deny a
waiver if the Administrator finds that California's protectiveness
determination was arbitrary and capricious. However, a finding that
California's determination was arbitrary and capricious must be based
upon clear and convincing evidence that California's finding was
unreasonable.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122, 1124 (``Once California has come
forward with a finding that the procedures it seeks to adopt will
not undermine the protectiveness of its standards, parties opposing
the waiver request must show that this finding is unreasonable.'');
see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121 (Jan. 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB did make a protectiveness determination in adopting the 2013
HD OBD Amendments, and found that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments would not
cause California motor vehicle emissions standards, in the aggregate,
to be less protective of the public health and welfare than applicable
federal standards.\32\ EPA received no comments or EPA is not otherwise
aware of evidence suggesting that CARB's protectiveness determination
was unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0699-0003], at 43, 51, and Attachment 14 (CARB Resolution 12-
29, dated August 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it is clear that California's standards are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards, and that the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter Requirements make
California's standards even more protective, EPA finds that
California's protectiveness determination is not arbitrary and
capricious.
b. Whether the Standards Are Necessary To Meet Compelling and
Extraordinary Conditions
    Section 209(b)(1)(B) instructs that EPA cannot grant a waiver if
the Agency finds that California ``does not need such State standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'' EPA's inquiry under
this second criterion has traditionally been to determine whether
California needs its own motor vehicle emission control program (i.e.
set of standards) to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and
not whether the specific standards (the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter
Requirements) that are the subject of the waiver request are necessary
to meet such conditions.\33\ In recent waiver actions, EPA again
examined the language of section 209(b)(1)(B) and reiterated this
longstanding traditional interpretation as the better approach for
analyzing the need for ``such State standards'' to meet ``compelling
and extraordinary conditions.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act
Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles,'' 74 FR
32744 (July 8, 2009), at 32761; see also ``California State Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption
Notice of Decision,'' 49 FR 18887 (May 3, 1984), at 18889-18890.
    \34\ See 78 FR 2112, at 2125-26 (Jan. 9, 2013) (``EPA does not
look at whether the specific standards at issue are needed to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions related to that air
pollutant.'' ; see also EPA's July 9, 2009 GHG Waiver Decision
wherein EPA rejected the suggested interpretation of section
209(b)(1)(B) as requiring a review of the specific need for
California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards as
opposed to the traditional interpretation (need for the motor
vehicle emission program as a whole) applied to local or regional
air pollution problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the 2013 HD OBD Amendments, CARB determined in
Resolution 12-29 that California continues to need its own motor
vehicle program to meet serious ongoing air pollution problems.\35\
CARB asserted that ``[t]he geographical and climatic conditions and the
tremendous growth in vehicle population and use that moved Congress to
authorize California to establish vehicle standards in 1967 still exist
today . . . and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing
existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying
California's need for its own motor vehicle emissions control
program.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ California Waiver Request Support Document, at 44 and
Attachment 14 (Resolution 12-29, dated August 23, 2012).
    \36\ California Waiver Request Support Document, at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There has been no evidence submitted to indicate that California's
compelling and extraordinary conditions do not continue to exist.
California, particularly in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air
basins, continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the
nation, and many areas in California continue to be in non-attainment
with national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter
and ozone.\37\ As California has previously stated, ``nothing in
[California's unique geographic and climatic] conditions has changed to
warrant a change in this determination.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 74 FR 32744, 32762-63 (July 8, 2009).
    \38\ 74 FR 32744, 32762 (July 8, 2009); 76 FR 77515, 77518
(December 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the record before us, EPA is unable to identify any change
in circumstances or evidence to suggest that the conditions that
Congress identified as giving rise to serious air quality problems in
California no longer exist. Therefore, EPA cannot find that California
does not need its state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California.
c. Consistency With Section 202(a)
    For the third and final criterion, EPA evaluates the program for
consistency with section 202(a) of the CAA. Under section 209(b)(1)(C)
of the CAA, EPA must deny California's waiver request if EPA finds that
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires that
regulations ``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
relevant technology, considering the cost of compliance within that
time.''
    EPA has previously stated that the determination is limited to
whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of
establishing that California's standards are technologically
infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements
inconsistent with the federal test procedure. Infeasibility would be
shown here by demonstrating

that there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of
technology necessary to meet the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter
Requirements that are subject to the waiver request, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time.\39\
California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be
inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test
procedures conflicted, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet
both the California and federal test requirements with the same test
vehicle.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., 38 F.R 30136 (November 1, 1973) and 40 FR 30311
(July 18, 1975).
    \40\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding test procedure conflict, CARB notes that there is no
issue of test procedure inconsistency because federal regulations
provide that engines certified to California's HD OBD regulation are
deemed to comply with federal standards. EPA has received no adverse
comment or evidence of test procedure inconsistency. We therefore
cannot find that the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter Requirements are
inconsistent with federal test procedures.
    EPA also did not receive any comments arguing that the 2013 HD OBD
Amendments were technologically infeasible or that the cost of
compliance would be excessive, such that California's standards might
be inconsistent with section 202(a).\41\ In EPA's review of the 2013 HD
OBD New or Stricter Requirements, we likewise cannot identify any
requirements that appear technologically infeasible or excessively
expensive for manufacturers to implement within the timeframes
provided. EPA therefore cannot find that the 2013 HD OBD New or
Stricter Requirements do not provide adequate lead time or are
otherwise not technically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., 78 FR 2134 (Jan. 9, 2013), 47 FR 7306, 7309
(Feb. 18, 1982), 43 FR 25735 (Jun. 17, 1978), and 46 FR 26371, 26373
(May 12, 1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore cannot find that the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter
Requirements that we analyzed under the waiver criteria are
inconsistent with section 202(a).
    Having found that the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter Requirements
satisfy each of the criteria for a waiver, and having received no
evidence to contradict this finding, we cannot deny a waiver for the
amendments.

IV. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(b) waivers to the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. After evaluating CARB's 2013 HD OBD Amendments and CARB's
submissions for EPA review, EPA is hereby confirming that the 2013 HD
OBD Amendments, with the exception of the 2013 HD OBD New or Stricter
Requirements identified above, are within the scope of EPA's previous
waivers for the HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement Regulation.
In addition, EPA is hereby granting a waiver for the 2013 HD OBD New or
Stricter Requirements.
    This decision will affect persons in California and those
manufacturers and/or owners/operators nationwide who must comply with
California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt
California's standards for which a section 209(b) waiver has been
granted under section 177 of the Act if certain criteria are met, this
decision would also affect those states and those persons in such
states. For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a
final action of national applicability, and also a final action of
nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be
filed by January 6, 2017. Judicial review of this final action may not
be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past waiver and authorization decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: October 24, 2016.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2016-26865 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48391-48392]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Hazardous
Materials Training Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves requirements for certain repair
stations to provide documentation showing that persons handling hazmat
for transportation have been trained following DOT guidelines.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 300, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0705.
    Title: Hazardous Materials Training Requirements.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA, as prescribed in 14 CFR parts 121 and 135,
requires certificate holders to submit manuals and hazmat training
programs, or revisions to an approved hazmat training program to obtain
initial and final approval as part of the FAA certification process.
Original certification is completed in accordance with 14 CFR part 119.
Continuing certification is completed in accordance with parts 121 and
135. The FAA uses the approval process to determine

compliance of the hazmat training programs with the applicable
regulations, national policies and safe operating practices. The FAA
must ensure that the documents adequately establish safe operating
procedures.
    Respondents: Approximately 2,772 operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 7 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 6,900 hours.
    Public comments invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2015.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-19826 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


operators. Rather, the EPA would need to determine that the state law
requirements in question were necessary or appropriate. No changes have
been made as a result of this comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. This action establishes a
FIP which serves as a mechanism 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, it does not impose any new obligations or
enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal government or the
private sector. In addition, the information collection activities
contained in the eight rules that are referenced in this FIP have also
been previously approved by OMB.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb: Standards of Performance for
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid
Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984 (OMB Control No. 2060-
0074); 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII: Standards of Performance for
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (OMB
Control No. 2060-0590); 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ: Standards of
Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines (OMB Control No. 2060-0610); 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa:
Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities
for which Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced
after September 18, 2015 (OMB Control No. 2060-0673); 40 CFR part
63, subpart DDDDD: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (OMB Control No. 2060-
0616); 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural Gas Production
Facilities (OMB Control No. 2060-0417); 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (OMB Control
No. 2060-0548); and 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK: Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Combustion Turbines (OMB Control No.
2060-0582).

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The EPA analyzed the impact on small
entities of streamlined permitting under the Federal Indian Country
Minor NSR rule \82\ 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 FIP
also relieves 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ ``Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian
Country,'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 FR 38748, July
1, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/01/2011-14981/review-of-new-sources-and-modifications-in-indian-country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    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 provides
one option for sources to comply with the Federal Indian Country Minor
NSR rule. The Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule itself, not this
FIP, 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 FIP merely provides a
streamlined mechanism for meeting that obligation.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA conducted outreach
on this rule via ongoing monthly meetings with tribal environmental
professionals in the development of the proposed action. This action
reflects tribal comments on, 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. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011),\83\ the EPA offered
consultation on the proposed FIP to elected tribal officials, but no
tribe requested a consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ For more information, go to: https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-consultation-and-coordination-indian-tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One tribal commenter did raise concerns about consultation in their
written comments. The commenter recommended that, in order to develop
an effective and equitable FIP, the EPA should first consult with the
Ute Indian Tribe so that the Tribe can offer its expertise, experience,
and input into developing the FIP. The commenter stated that the EPA
should not attempt to revise the definition of Indian country. The Ute
Indian Tribe requested that the EPA engage the Tribe in additional
government-to-government consultation once the EPA has reviewed
comments on the proposed rule and is prepared to discuss those comments
and any changes to the proposed rule. After the comment period for this
rulemaking closed in December, we followed up on the Ute Indian Tribe's
request and it was determined that the requested consultation was no
longer necessary.
    The EPA agrees with the commenter that consultation with affected
tribes is important to development of a successful FIP. The EPA remains
available to consult with tribes in regards to issues that affect them,
or proactively in connection with tribal efforts to develop a TIP. The
EPA has reached out to tribes during the development of this FIP. The
EPA notes that the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation expressed an
interest in working with us to develop this FIP, although the Tribe did
not submit comments on the proposed FIP.
    We have made changes to the FIP proposal as a result of tribal
comments. Most notably, at the request of a tribal commenter, we have
clarified that we are not changing the definition of Indian country.
Instead, we are clarifying the geographic applicability of the FIP with
respect to areas of Indian country.
    As the FIP is 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 always available for consultation with
any interested tribe.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This rule implements certain aspects of the
Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule.
    Our primary goal in developing this FIP is to ensure that air
resources in areas covered by the Federal Indian Country Minor NSR rule
will be protected in the manner intended by the CAA. This action will
help ensure air quality protection in areas covered by the Federal
Indian Country Minor NSR rule, by including in a FIP a comprehensive
set of control requirements for new and modified true minor source in
the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments
of the oil and natural gas sector. In addition, through this FIP, we

seek to establish a mechanism that provides an effective and efficient
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. Under this rule we are
finalizing an approach that enables a streamlined process, which helps
promote economic development by minimizing delays in new construction;
and provides a process comparable to those programs operated outside of
Indian county, which helps tribes compete for new oil and natural gas
production and natural gas processing in areas covered by the Federal
Indian Country Minor NSR rule.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

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

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions

0
2. Subpart C of part 49 is amended by adding an undesignated center
heading and Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105 to read as follows:

Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions From True Minor
Sources in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and
Natural Gas Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Sec.  49.101  Introduction.

    (a) What is the purpose of Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105?
Sections 49.101 through 49.105 adopt legally and practicably
enforceable requirements to control and reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter
(PM, PM10, PM2.5), hydrogen sulfide, carbon
monoxide and various sulfur compounds from new and modified true minor
sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas
processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector.
    (b) Am I subject to Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105? You are
subject to the requirements if you:
    (1) Own or operate a new true minor oil and natural gas source or
an existing true minor oil and natural gas source undergoing
modification as determined pursuant to Sec.  49.153(a) that meets the
criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
Then you shall comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  49.104 and
49.105, unless you obtain a source-specific permit as specified in
paragraph (b)(2) or (3) of this section.
    (i) The source is an oil and natural gas source as defined in Sec.
49.102;
    (ii) The oil and natural gas source as defined in Sec.  49.102 is
located in Indian country as defined in Sec.  49.152(d), within the
geographic scope of the Federal Minor New Source Review Program in
Indian Country, as specified in Sec.  49.102;
    (iii) The oil and natural gas source as defined in Sec.  49.102 is
a new true minor source or a minor modification of an existing true
minor source, as determined under Sec.  49.153;
    (iv) The oil and natural gas source as defined in Sec.  49.102
begins construction or modification on or after October 3, 2016; and
    (v) The oil and natural gas source as defined in Sec.  49.102 is
not located in a designated nonattainment area.
    (2) Owners/operators of sources that meet the criteria specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section that choose to obtain a source-
specific permit as specified in Sec.  49.155 before beginning
construction are not required to comply with the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105.
    (3) Owners/operators of sources that meet the criteria specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section that the Reviewing Authority requires
to obtain a source-specific permit to ensure protection of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards as specified in Sec.  49.155 before
beginning construction are not required to comply with Sec. Sec.
49.101 through 49.105.
    (c) When must I comply with Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105? You
must comply with Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.101 on or after October
3, 2016.
    (d) This Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) does not apply to minor
modifications at major sources.

Sec.  49.102  Definitions.

    As used in Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105, all terms not defined
herein shall have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act, in
subparts A and OOOOa of 40 CFR part 60, in the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, or in the
Federal Minor New Source Review Program in Indian Country at Sec.
49.152. The following terms shall have the specific meanings given
them:
    Oil and natural gas source means a stationary source engaged in the
extraction and production of oil and natural gas and/or the processing
of natural gas, including the wells and all related processes used in
the extraction, production, recovery, lifting, stabilization, and
separation or treatment of oil, water, and/or natural gas (including
condensate). Oil and natural gas production and processing components
may include, but are not limited to: Wells and related casing head;
tubing head and ``Christmas tree'' piping; pumps; compressors; heater
treaters; separators; storage vessels; pneumatic devices; stationary
engines; natural gas sweetening; truck loading; dewpoint suppression
skids; natural gas dehydrators; completion and workover processes;
gathering pipelines and related components that collect and transport
the oil, natural gas and other materials and wastes from the wells or
well pads; and natural gas processing plants.
    Oil and natural gas well means a single well that extracts
subsurface reservoir fluids containing a mixture of oil and/or natural
gas, and water.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises an oil and natural gas source.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of an EPA
Region or an authorized representative of the Regional Administrator.

Sec.  49.103  Delegation of authority of administration to Indian
tribes.

    (a) What is the purpose of this section? The purpose of this
section is to establish the process by which a Regional Administrator
may delegate to a federally-recognized tribe the authority to assist
the EPA with administration of this FIP (Sec. Sec.  49.101 through
49.105). This section provides for administrative delegation and does
not affect the eligibility criteria under Sec.  49.6 for treatment in
the same manner as a state or a tribe's ability to obtain

approval of a tribal implementation plan under Sec.  49.7.
    (b) How does a tribe request delegation? In order to be delegated
authority to assist us with administration of this FIP, the authorized
representative of a federally-recognized tribe must submit a request to
a Regional Administrator that:
    (1) Identifies the specific provisions for which delegation is
requested;
    (2) Identifies the Indian Reservation or other affected areas of
Indian country for which delegation is requested;
    (3) Includes a statement by the applicant's legal counsel (or
equivalent official) that includes the following:
    (i) A statement that the applicant is a tribe recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior;
    (ii) A descriptive statement that is consistent with the type of
information described in Sec.  49.7(a)(2) demonstrating that the
applicant is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and
powers over a defined area;
    (iii) A description of the laws of the tribe that provide adequate
authority to administer the Federal rules and provisions for which
delegation is requested; and
    (iv) A demonstration that the tribal agency that will be
responsible for administration has the technical capability and
adequate resources to administer the FIP provisions for which
delegation is requested.
    (c) How is the delegation of administrative authority accomplished?
(1) A Delegation of Authority Agreement will set forth the terms and
conditions of the administrative delegation, will specify the rule and
provisions that the tribe shall be authorized to implement on behalf of
the EPA, and shall be entered into by the Regional Administrator and
the tribe. The Agreement will become effective upon the date that both
the Regional Administrator and the authorized representative of the
tribe have signed the Agreement. Once the delegation becomes effective,
the tribe will be responsible, to the extent specified in the
Agreement, for assisting us with administration of this FIP and shall
act as the Regional Administrator as that term is used in these
regulations. Any Delegation of Authority Agreement will clarify the
circumstances in which the term ``Regional Administrator'' found
throughout this FIP is to refer only to the EPA Regional Administrator
and when it is intended instead to refer to the EPA Regional
Administrator or a federally-recognized tribe.
    (2) A Delegation of Authority Agreement may be modified, amended,
or revoked, in part or in whole, by the Regional Administrator after
consultation with a tribe.
    (d) How will any Delegation of Authority Agreement be publicized?
The Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal
Register informing the public of any Delegation of Authority Agreement
with a tribe to assist us with administration of all or a portion of
this FIP and will identify such delegation in the Code of Federal
Regulations. The Regional Administrator shall also publish an
announcement of the Delegation of Authority Agreement in local
newspapers.

Sec.  49.104  Requirements regarding threatened or endangered species
and historic properties.

    (a) What are sources required to do to address threatened or
endangered species and historic properties? An owner/operator subject
to the requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105 to
satisfy its obligation under Sec.  49.151(c)(1)(iii)(B) to obtain a
minor NSR permit shall meet either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this
section, as appropriate.
    (1) Prior completion of assessment by another federal agency. The
owner/operator shall submit to the EPA Regional Office (and to the
relevant tribe for the area where the source is located/locating) valid
documentation demonstrating that prior Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and/or National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance has been
completed by another federal agency in connection with the specific oil
and natural gas activity operated under this FIP (we would consider a
document no longer valid if the issuing agency has reopened
consultation for the prior approval). The appropriate documents shall
clearly show that the other federal agency had met its obligations
under both the ESA and NHPA. A simple reference to a Record of Decision
or other final decision document will not be acceptable. For listed
species, acceptable documentation can include a copy of a letter or
biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addressing
the effects of the project on listed species and critical habitat and
demonstrating compliance by the federal action agency with ESA
requirements. Where the federal action agency prepares a biological
assessment of the action as part of its ESA compliance, that document
shall also be provided to the EPA Regional Office. For historic
properties, acceptable documentation can include: a letter from the
appropriate historic preservation office, or a memorandum of agreement
with that office, addressing the effects of the project on historic
properties and demonstrating compliance by the federal action agency
with NHPA requirements. All documentation shall be attached to the Part
1 Registration Form submitted in accordance with Sec.
49.160(c)(1)(iv).
    (2) Screening procedures completed by the owner/operator. The
owner/operator shall submit to the EPA Regional Office (and to the
relevant tribe for the area where the source is located/locating)
documentation demonstrating that it has completed the screening
procedures specified for consideration of threatened and endangered
species and/or historic properties and receive written confirmation
from the EPA stating that it has satisfactorily completed these
procedures. This process of source documentation submittal and the
EPA's confirmation that it has satisfactorily completed the procedures
must occur prior to the source's submittal of its Part 1 Registration
Form pursuant to Sec.  49.160(c)(1)(iv). (The procedures are contained
in the following document: ``Procedures to Address Threatened and
Endangered Species and Historic Properties for the Federal
Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources
in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas
Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector,'' https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review). Review of your
submittal will be conducted by the Reviewing Authority in accordance
with the procedure in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) Within 30 days of receipt of your documentation, by letter to
you, the Reviewing Authority must provide one of the following
determinations:
    (A) The documentation satisfactorily demonstrates completion of the
screening procedures; or
    (B) The documentation is not adequate, and additional information
is needed. If the initial submittal is deficient, the Reviewing
Authority will note any such deficiencies and may offer further
direction on completing the screening procedures. Once you have
addressed the noted deficiencies you must resubmit your revised
screening procedure documentation for review. An additional 15-day
review notification period will be used for the Reviewing Authority to
determine whether the listed species and/or historic property screening
procedures have been satisfied. If the Reviewing Authority makes such a
determination,

they will send you a letter stating that conclusion.
    (ii) You must obtain a letter from the Reviewing Authority
indicating that the source has adequately completed the screening
procedures before you can submit the Part 1 Registration Form under
Sec.  49.160(c)(1)(iv) and begin construction under this FIP.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  49.105  Requirements.

    (a) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources:
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters),
for purposes of this FIP, sources must comply with all of the
applicable provisions of the standard as written at the time the owner/
operator begins construction on the new true minor source or on the
minor modification at an existing true minor source.
    (b) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ (NESHAP for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines), for purposes of
this FIP, sources must comply with all of the applicable provisions of
the standard as written at the time the owner/operator begins
construction on the new true minor source or on the minor modification
at an existing true minor source.
    (c) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII (Standards of
Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion
Engines), for purposes of this FIP, sources must comply with all of the
applicable provisions of the standard as written at the time the owner/
operator begins construction on the new true minor source or on the
minor modification at an existing true minor source, except for
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section:
    (1) Section 60.4200(a)(1)--Am I subject to this subpart? (applies
to manufacturers);
    (2) Section 60.4200(b)--Not applicable to a stationary spark
ignition internal combustion engine being tested at an engine test
cell/stand;
    (3) Section 60.4201--What emission standards must I meet for non-
emergency engines if I am a stationary compression ignition internal
combustion engine manufacturer?;
    (4) Section 60.4202--What emission standards must I meet for
emergency engines if I am a stationary compression ignition internal
combustion engine manufacturer?;
    (5) Section 60.4203--How long must my engines meet the emission
standards if I am a manufacturer of stationary compression ignition
internal combustion engines?;
    (6) Section 60.4210--What are my compliance requirements if I am a
stationary compression ignition internal combustion engine
manufacturer?; and
    (7) Section 60.4215--What requirements must I meet for engines used
in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands?
    (d) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ (Standards of
Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines),
for purposes of this FIP, sources must comply with all of the
applicable provisions of the standard as written at the time the owner/
operator begins construction on the new true minor source or on the
minor modification at an existing true minor source, except for
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section:
    (1) Section 60.4230(b)--Not applicable to stationary spark ignition
internal combustion engines being tested at an engine test cell/stand;
    (2) Section 60.4230(c)--Exemption for obtaining a Title V permit if
owner or operator of an area source subject to this part;
    (3) Sections 60.4231 and 60.4232--Emission standards for
manufacturers;
    (4) Sections 60.4238 through 60.4242--Compliance Requirements for
Manufacturers; and
    (5) Section 60.4247--Mobile source provisions that apply to
manufacturers of stationary spark ignition internal combustion engines
or equipment containing such engines.
    (e) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of
Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels), for purposes
of this FIP, sources must comply with all of the applicable provisions
of the standard as written at the time the owner/operator begins
construction on the new true minor source or on the minor modification
at an existing true minor source, except for paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
of this section:
    (1) Section 60.112b(c)--Source-specific standard for Merck & Co.,
Inc.'s Stonewall Plant in Elkton, Virginia; and
    (2) Section 60.117b(a) and (b)--Delegation of authority.
    (f) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to subpart OOOOa (Standards of Performance
for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which Construction,
Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced after September 18, 2015),
for purposes of this FIP, sources must comply with all of the
applicable provisions of the standard as written at the time the owner/
operator begins construction on the new true minor source or on the
minor modification at an existing true minor source, except for
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section:
    (1) Section 60.5365a(h)(4)--Existing sources constructed after
August 23, 2011;
    (2) Section 60.5370a(c)--Permit exemption;
    (3) Section 60.5413a(a)(5)--Exemptions from performance testing--
hazardous waste incinerator;
    (4) Section 60.5420a(a)(2)(i)--Advance notification requirements
for well completions; and
    (5) Section 60.5420a(a)(2)(ii)--Advance notification requirements
of well completions when subject to state regulation that requires
advance notification.
    (g) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural
Gas Production Facilities), for purposes of this FIP, sources must
comply with all of the applicable provisions of the standard as written
at the time the owner/operator begins construction on the new true
minor source or on the minor modification at an existing true minor
source, except for paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section:
    (1) Section 63.760(a)(2)--Facilities that process, upgrade or store
hydrocarbon liquids;
    (2) Section 63.760(b)(1)(ii)--Each storage vessel with the
potential for flash emissions;
    (3) Section 63.760(g)--Recordkeeping for major sources that overlap
with other regulations for equipment leaks;
    (4) Section 63.764(c)(2)--Requirements for compliance with
standards for storage vessels;
    (5) Seciton 63.766--Storage vessel standards; and
    (6) Section 63.769--Equipment leak standards.
    (h) For true minor sources (and minor modifications at true minor
sources) that are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK (Standards of
Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines), for purposes of this
FIP, the

owner/operator must comply with all of the applicable provisions of the
standard as written at the time the owner/operator begins construction
on the new true minor source or on the minor modification at an
existing true minor source.

0
3. Section 49.151 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)
introductory text, (c)(1)(iii)(A) and (B), and (d)(1), (2), and (4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  49.151  Program overview.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) It satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act by establishing a pre-construction permitting program for all new
and modified minor sources (minor sources) and minor modifications at
major sources located in Indian country and by establishing a Federal
Implementation Plan (Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105) for true minor
sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas
processing segments that are located in Indian country.
* * * * *
    (c) When and where does this program apply? (1) The provisions of
this program apply in all Indian reservation lands where no EPA-
approved program is in place and all other areas of Indian country
where no EPA-approved program is in place and over which an Indian
tribe, or the EPA, has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction,
according to the implementation schedule in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section:
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) If you own or operate an existing true minor source in Indian
country (as defined in Sec.  49.152(d)), you must register your source
with the Reviewing Authority in your area by March 1, 2013. If your
true minor source is not engaged in an oil and natural gas activity and
you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before September
2, 2014, you must also register your source with the Reviewing
Authority in your area within 90 days after the source begins
operation. If your true minor source is engaged in an oil and natural
gas activity and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and
before October 3, 2016, you must register your source with the
Reviewing Authority in your area within 90 days after the source begins
operation. You are exempt from these registration requirements if your
true minor source is subject to Sec.  49.138.
    (B) If your true minor source is not engaged in an oil and natural
gas activity and you wish to begin construction of a new true minor
source or a minor modification at an existing true minor source on or
after September 2, 2014, you must first obtain a permit pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  49.154 and 49.155 (or a general permit/permit by rule
pursuant to Sec.  49.156, if applicable). If your true minor source is
an oil and natural gas source, as defined in Sec.  49.102, and you wish
to begin construction of a new true minor source or a minor
modification at an existing true minor source on or after October 3,
2016, you must either comply with the Federal Implementation Plan for
sources in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas
processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector that are located
in Indian country (Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105) from the day you
begin construction or opt out of those requirements pursuant to Sec.
49.101(b)(2) and instead obtain a minor source permit pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  49.154 and 49.155 before beginning construction.
Alternatively, you may be required by the EPA, pursuant to Sec.
49.101(b)(3), to obtain a minor source permit pursuant to Sec. Sec.
49.154 and 49.155 before beginning construction. All proposed new
sources or modifications of existing sources are also subject to the
registration requirements of Sec.  49.160, except for sources that are
subject to Sec.  49.138.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) If you begin construction of a new source or modification that
is subject to this program after the applicable date specified in
paragraph (c) of this section without applying for and receiving a
permit pursuant to this program or complying with the Federal
Implementation Plan at Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105 for the oil and
natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil
and natural gas sector, you will be subject to appropriate enforcement
action.
    (2) If you do not construct or operate your source or modification
in accordance with the terms of your minor NSR permit or the Federal
Implementation Plan for the oil and natural gas production and natural
gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector at Sec. Sec.
49.101 through 49.105, you will be subject to appropriate enforcement
action.
* * * * *
    (4) Issuance of a permit or compliance with the Federal
Implementation Plan for the oil and natural gas production and natural
gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector at Sec. Sec.
49.101 through 49.105 does not relieve you of the responsibility to
comply fully with applicable provisions of any EPA-approved
implementation plan or Federal Implementation Plan or any other
requirements under applicable law.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 49.152 is amended in paragraph (d) by revising the
introductory text and adding paragraph (4) to the definition of
``Indian country'' and adding in alphabetical order the definition
``Startup of production'' to read as follows:

Sec.  49.152  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, means the following
as applied to this program:
* * * * *
    (4) The geographic scope of applicability of this rule is as
specified in Sec.  49.151(c)(1).
* * * * *
    Startup of production is as defined at Sec.  60.5430a.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 49.153 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(B) and
(a)(1)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  49.153  Applicability.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Step 2. Determine whether your proposed source's potential to
emit for the pollutant that you are evaluating, (including fugitive
emissions, to the extent they are quantifiable, only if the source
belongs to one of the source categories listed pursuant to section
302(j) of the Act), is equal to or greater than the corresponding minor
NSR threshold in Table 1 of this section. If it is, then you are
subject to the pre-construction requirements of this program for that
pollutant, except that sources in the oil and natural gas production
and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector
shall instead comply with the requirements of the Federal
Implementation Plan at Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105, unless you
opt-out of the Federal Implementation Plan pursuant to Sec.
49.101(b)(2) in which case you are subject to the pre-construction
requirements of this program for that pollutant or are required by the
EPA to obtain a minor source permit pursuant to Sec.  49.101(b)(3). If
it is not, then proceed to Step 3 (paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section).
    (ii) * * *

    (B) Step 2. Determine whether the increase in allowable emissions
from the proposed modification (calculated using the procedures of
paragraph (b) of this section) would be equal to or greater than the
minor NSR threshold in Table 1 of this section for the pollutant that
you are evaluating. If it is, then you are subject to the pre-
construction requirements of this program for that pollutant, except
oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing sources shall
instead comply with the requirements of the Federal Implementation Plan
at Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105, unless you opt-out of the Federal
Implementation Plan pursuant to Sec.  49.101(b)(2) in which case you
are subject to the pre-construction requirements of this program for
that pollutant or are required by the EPA to obtain a minor source
permit pursuant to Sec.  49.101(b)(3). If it is not, then proceed to
Step 3 (paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of this section).
* * * * *

0
6. Section 49.160 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and
(iii), adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv), and revising paragraph (c)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  49.160  Registration program for minor sources in Indian country.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) If your true minor source is not engaged in an oil and natural
gas activity, and you commence construction after August 30, 2011, and
before September 2, 2014, then you must register your source with the
Reviewing Authority within 90 days after the source begins operation.
If your new true minor source or minor modification of an existing true
minor source is engaged in an oil and natural gas activity, and you
commence construction after August 30, 2011, and before October 3,
2016, then you must register your source with the Reviewing Authority
within 90 days after the source begins operation.
    (iii) If your true minor source is not engaged in an oil and
natural gas activity, and you commence construction or modification of
your source on or after September 2, 2014, and your source is subject
to this rule, then you must report your source's actual emissions (if
available) as part of your permit application and your permit
application information will be used to fulfill the registration
requirements described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. If your
true minor source is engaged in an oil and natural gas activity, and
you commence construction or modification of your source on or after
October 3, 2016, then you must report your source's actual emissions
(if available) as part of your permit application (source-specific
permits), unless you are subject to the Federal Implementation Plan
under Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105 (where the requirements under
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section shall be met). Your permit
application for oil and natural gas production and natural gas
processing sources seeking a source-specific permit will be used to
fulfill the registration requirements described in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section.
    (iv) Minor sources complying with Sec. Sec.  49.101 through 49.105
for the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing
segments of the oil and natural gas sector, as defined in Sec.  49.102,
must submit the Part 1 Registration Form 30 days prior to beginning
construction that contains the information in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section. The Part 2 Registration Form must be submitted within 60 days
after the startup of production as defined in Sec.  49.152(d), which
include emissions information. The source must determine the potential
for emissions within 30 days after startup of production. The
combination of the Part 1 and Part 2 Registration Forms submittals
satisfies the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The
forms are submitted to the EPA instead of the application form required
in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The forms are available at:
https://www.epa.gov/tribal-air/tribal-minor-new-source-review or from
the EPA Regional Offices.
* * * * *
    (4) Duty to obtain a permit or to comply with the Federal
Implementation Plan for sources in the oil and natural gas production
and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector.
Submitting a registration form does not relieve you of the requirement
to obtain any required permit, including a pre-construction permit, or
to comply with the Federal Implementation Plan for the oil and natural
gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and
natural gas sector if your source or any physical or operational change
at your source would be subject to any minor or major NSR rule.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 49.166 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  49.166  Program overview.

* * * * *
    (c) When and where does this program apply? (1) The provisions of
this program apply to new major sources and major modifications at
existing major sources located in nonattainment areas in all Indian
reservation lands where no EPA-approved program is in place and all
other areas of Indian country where no EPA-approved program is in place
and over which an Indian tribe, or the EPA, has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction, and where there is no EPA-approved
nonattainment major NSR program beginning on August 30, 2011. The
provisions of this program apply only to new sources and modifications
that are major for the regulated NSR pollutant(s) for which the area is
designated nonattainment.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 49.167 is amended by revising the introductory text and
adding paragraph (4) to the definition of ``Indian country'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  49.167  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, means the following
as applied to this program:
* * * * *
    (4) The geographic scope of applicability of this rule is as
specified in Sec.  49.166(c)(1).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-11969 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61755]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP04-413-004]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Shipper Refund Report

October 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 6, 2006, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
(Tennessee) tendered for filing its Statement of Refunds Report, which
reflects refunds paid to applicable Columbia Gulf Transmission Company
shippers as directed by the August 11 Order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 19, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-17463 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 34737]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for Issuing a License to Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne), LLC for
LauncherOne Launches at the Mojave Air and Space Port, Kern County,
California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT), lead Federal agency. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, cooperating agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
implementing regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, the FAA is announcing the availability of the
Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
Issuing a License to Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne), LLC for LauncherOne
Launches at the Mojave Air and Spaceport, Kern County, California
(Final Environmental Assessment [EA]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final EA addresses the potential
environmental impacts of Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne) LLC's (L1's)
proposal to launch the LauncherOne at the Mojave Air and Space Port in
Kern County, California, for purposes of transporting small satellites
into a variety of Low Earth Orbits. The launch system consists of the
rocket (LauncherOne) and a carrier aircraft (Boeing 747). To operate
LauncherOne at the Mojave Air and Space Port, L1 must obtain a launch
license from the FAA. Issuing a launch license is considered a major
Federal action subject to environmental review under NEPA. Under the
Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a launch license to L1 that would
allow L1 to operate LauncherOne from the Mojave Air and Space Port. L1
is proposing a maximum of 115 launches over the course of the 5-year
launch license (expected 2017-2021). The maximum number of annual
launches during this time period would be 40.
    The Final EA evaluated the environmental impacts of the Proposed
Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative,
the FAA would not issue a launch license for the operation of
LauncherOne from the Mojave Air and Space Port. Also, the FAA would not
modify Mojave Air and Space Port's launch site operator license to
include ``orbital'' reusable launch vehicle missions. The Mojave Air
and Space Port would continue its existing operations.
    The FAA has posted the Final EA and FONSI on the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation Web site: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2017.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-15702 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P