60700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T11–596 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–596 Safety Zone, Lucas Oil Drag 

Boat Racing Series; Thompson Bay, Lake 

Havasu City, AZ. 

(a) Location. The safety zone includes 

the waters of Thompson Bay 

encompassed by drawing a line from 

point to point along the following 

coordinates: 

Northern Zone Line: 

34°27′57.96′′ N, 114°20′48.49′′ W 

34°27′57.71′′ N, 114°20′49.75′′ W 

North West Zone Line: 

34°27′07.99′′ N, 114°21′09.93′′ W 

34°26′51.99′′ N, 114°21′03.83′′ W 

South Zone Line: 

34°27′07.99′′ N, 114°21′09.93′′ W 

34°26′51.99′′ N, 114°21′03.83′′ W 

(b) Enforcement period. This safety 

zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 

p.m. on October 11, 2013 thru October 

13, 2013. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative, means any 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the Coast Guard on board Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and 

local, state, and federal law enforcement 

vessels who have been authorized to act 

on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit 

through, or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated representative. 

(2) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San 

Diego, or his designated representative. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by the Captain 

of the Port of San Diego or his 

designated representative by siren, 

radio, flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: September 10, 2013. 

S.M. Mahoney, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23995 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0489; FRL–9901–58– 

Region 9] 

Source Specific Federal 

Implementation Plan for Implementing 

Best Available Retrofit Technology for 

Four Corners Power Plant; Navajo 

Nation; Extension of Notification 

Deadline 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2012, EPA 

promulgated a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to implement the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirement of the Regional Haze Rule 

for the Four Corners Power Plant 

(FCPP), which is located on the Navajo 

Nation Indian Reservation. Included in 

the FIP was a requirement that by July 

1, 2013, Arizona Public Service (APS), 

co-owner and operator of FCPP must 

notify EPA of its selected BART 

compliance strategy. On June 19, 2013, 

APS requested that EPA extend the 

notification date from July 1 to 

December 31, 2013, due to new 

uncertainties related to the potential 

deregulation of the retail electricity 

market in Arizona that complicate its 

decision for selecting a BART 

compliance option. In response to this 

request, on July 11, 2013, EPA proposed 

to extend the notification date, from July 

1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. EPA did 

not receive any comments during the 

30-day public comment period for the 

proposed action. EPA received one 

comment that was emailed to EPA on 

August 13, 2013, one day after the close 

of the comment period. We are 

providing a response to the late 

comment, however the information in 

the late comment did not change the 

basis or justification for our proposal to 

extend the notification date. Therefore, 

EPA is taking final action to extend the 

notification date in the FIP from July 1, 

2013 to December 31, 2013. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action at EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0489. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. While documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at EPA Region 9 (e.g., 

maps, voluminous reports, copyrighted 

material), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972– 

3958, r9_airplanning@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of EPA Action and Response to 

Late Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

FCPP is a privately owned and 

operated coal-fired power plant located 

on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation 

near Farmington, New Mexico. Based on 

lease agreements signed in 1960, FCPP 

was constructed and has been operating 

on real property held in trust by the 

Federal government for the Navajo 

Nation. The facility consists of five coalfired electric utility steam generating 

units with a total capacity of 2,060 

megawatts (MW). Units 1, 2, and 3 at 

FCPP are owned entirely by APS, which 

serves as the facility operator, and are 

rated to 170 MW (Units 1 and 2) and 

220 MW (Unit 3). Units 4 and 5 are each 

rated to a capacity of 750 MW, and are 

co-owned by six entities: Southern 

California Edison (48 percent), APS (15 

percent), Public Service Company of 

New Mexico (13 percent), Salt River 

Project (10 percent), El Paso Electric 

Company (7 percent), and Tucson 

Electric Power (7 percent). 

On August 24, 2012, EPA 

promulgated a FIP that established 

limits for emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from FCPP under the 

BART provision of the Regional Haze 

Rule (77 FR 51620). The final FIP 

required the owners of FCPP to 

implement one of two strategies for 

BART compliance: (1) Compliance with 

a facility-wide BART emission limit for 

NOX of 0.11 pounds per million British 

Thermal Units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) 

by October 23, 2017, or (2) retirement of 

Units 1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014, and 

compliance with a BART emission limit 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 60701 

1See 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4). 

2See Letter from Susan Kidd, Director 

Environmental Policies and Programs, Arizona 

Public Service, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 31, 

2012. 

3APS received approval from the ACC on April 

24, 2012; from FERC on November 27, 2012; and 

from the Department of Justice/Federal Trade 

Commission on July 2, 2012. As discussed in our 

final rulemaking dated August 24, 2012, EPA 

already understood that the CPUC approved the 

sale of SCE’s shares of Units 4 and 5 at FCPP to 

APS on March 22, 2012. 

4See letter from Ann Becker, Vice President, 

Environmental and Chief Sustainability Officer, 

Arizona Public Service, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated June 

19, 2013. 

5http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Administration/

About/Letters/5-23- 

13%20Retail%20Competition%2013-0135.pdf. 

6Form 8–K was appended to the June 19, 2013 

letter from Ann Becker to Jared Blumenfeld. 

for NOX of 0.098 lb/MMBtu on Units 4 

and 5 by July 1, 2018. The second BART 

compliance strategy, involving 

retirement of Units 1, 2, and 3, was 

based on a broader plan put forth by 

APS that also called for APS to purchase 

Southern California Edison’s 48 percent 

ownership interest in Units 4 and 5 at 

FCPP. This compliance strategy was 

proposed and finalized in the FIP as an 

alternative emission control strategy 

that achieved greater reasonable 

progress than BART. For additional 

information regarding EPA’s analyses 

regarding BART and the alternative 

emission control strategy, see EPA’s 

BART proposal (75 FR 64221, October 

29, 2010), supplemental proposal (76 FR 

10530, February 25, 2011) and final rule 

(77 FR 51620, August 24, 2012). 

As discussed in our supplemental 

proposal published on February 25, 

2011, APS’ choice to retire Units 1, 2, 

and 3, and comply with BART emission 

limits on Units 4 and 5 was contingent 

on the resolution of several issues. 

These issues included a renewed site 

lease with the Navajo Nation, a renewed 

coal contract, and regulatory approvals 

from the Arizona Corporation 

Commission (ACC), California Public 

Utilities Commission (CPUC), and 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) for APS to purchase the 48 

percent interest of Units 4 and 5 

currently owned by Southern California 

Edison (SCE). Because the regulatory 

approvals, renewed site lease, and 

renewed coal contract were expected to 

require significant time and effort by 

APS, other owners, and the Navajo 

Nation, EPA’s final FIP included 

requirements for APS to (1) update EPA 

by January 1, 2013, on the status of lease 

negotiations and regulatory approvals, 

and (2) notify EPA, by July 1, 2013, of 

the BART strategy APS would elect to 

implement, including a plan and 

schedule for compliance with its chosen 

strategy.1

On December 31, 2012, APS provided 

an update to EPA regarding the status of 

the approvals required for implementing 

the alternative emission control 

strategy.2 APS stated that on March 7, 

2011, APS and the Navajo Nation 

executed an agreement to extend the 

lease for FCPP to July 6, 2041. The lease 

renewal must be reviewed and approved 

by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

which triggers review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and other related reviews, 

including under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. NEPA review 

is underway and is expected to 

conclude in time to allow for a Record 

of Decision by January 2015. EPA is a 

cooperating agency in the NEPA 

process. In its December 31, 2012 

update letter, APS also stated that it is 

in ongoing negotiation for a new coal 

supply agreement with its coal supplier. 

Finally, APS confirmed that it had 

obtained regulatory approvals to 

purchase SCE’s 48 percent interest of 

Units 4 and 5.3

However, in a letter dated June 19, 

2013, APS requested that EPA extend 

the date by which APS must provide 

notification of its BART implementation 

strategy for FCPP.4 APS explained that 

it had previously expected to meet the 

July 1, 2013 notification date because it 

had completed the processes to obtain 

regulatory approvals to purchase SCE’s 

shares of Units 4 and 5, and renewal of 

the lease and coal contract were 

underway. Then, unexpectedly, in May 

2013, the ACC voted to re-examine 

deregulation of the retail electric market 

in Arizona.5 In its June 19, 2013 letter, 

APS explains that, depending on its 

structure and reach, a deregulated retail 

electric market could significantly 

change the BART compliance strategy 

for FCPP. Thus, APS stated that it 

would no longer be able to make an 

informed decision regarding the BART 

option by July 1, 2013. APS stated that 

its decision concerning a selected 

compliance strategy requires more 

certainty regarding the likelihood of 

deregulation in Arizona. APS also filed 

a Form 8–K with the United States 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

disclosing the uncertainty caused by the 

ACC decision to examine deregulation.6

APS has requested that EPA extend 

the notification date for its selection of 

the BART compliance strategy to 

December 31, 2013. APS noted that the 

potential for deregulation of the retail 

electric market in Arizona was not 

foreseen at the time of our final 

rulemaking in 2012. APS also noted that 

extending the notification date by six 

months will not affect public health or 

the environment because the BART 

compliance dates, in 2017 or 2018, 

depending on the compliance strategy 

selected, are not linked to the 

notification date and remain unchanged. 

On July 11, 2013, EPA proposed to 

revise the notification date provision in 

the existing source-specific federal 

implementation plan for FCPP, codified 

at 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4), to extend the 

date by which the owner or operator of 

FCPP must notify EPA of its selected 

BART compliance strategy from July 1, 

2013 to December 31, 2013 (78 FR 

41731). EPA’s proposal included a 

proposed determination that an 

extended notification date was 

necessary to provide APS with the 

needed flexibility in determining 

whether to implement BART or the 

alternative emission control strategy to 

reduce FCPP’s NOX emissions by 80–87 

percent. Additionally the proposed 

extension would not interfere with 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other requirement of the CAA 

because the proposed notification date 

extension does not change the 

compliance dates associated with BART 

or the alternative emission control 

strategy. The public comment period for 

the proposed action closed on August 

12, 2013. EPA did not receive any 

comments on the proposed action 

during the public comment period. On 

August 13, 2013, a comment letter dated 

August 12, 2013, was sent to EPA via 

electronic mail. Although our proposal 

stated that comments ‘‘must be 

postmarked no later than August 12, 

2013,’’ EPA is responding to the late 

comment in this final rulemaking. 

Because the comment does not change 

our basis or justification for our 

proposal to extend the notification date, 

EPA is finalizing our proposed action. 

II. Summary of EPA Action and 

Response to Late Comment 

EPA is taking final action to extend 

the date by which the owner or operator 

of FCPP must notify EPA of its selected 

BART compliance strategy, from July 1, 

2013 to December 31, 2013. This final 

action revises one provision in the 

existing source-specific FIP for FCPP, 

codified at 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4). The 

notification date was not a substantive 

requirement of our BART 

determination, nor was it a requirement 

related to the emission limit 

constituting BART or the timeframe for 

BART compliance, as defined in the 

CAA or the Regional Haze Rule. EPA 

notes that the FIP continues to require 

FCPP to meet the emission limits 

required under BART or the alternative 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7Exhibit 2 to the SJCA Comment Letter was a 

letter dated July 1, 2013 from Robert L. Burns, 

Arizona Corporation Commission, to President Ben 

Shelly and Speaker Johnny Naize, Navajo Nation, 

in response to a letter from President Shelly and 

Speaker Naize, dated June 24, 2013, expressing 

concern related to the decision of the ACC to 

reexamine deregulation in Arizona. 

emission control strategy by the 

compliance dates specified in our final 

rulemaking, codified at 40 CFR 

49.5512(i)(2) and (3), regardless of the 

extension of the notification date in 

(i)(4). 

On August 13, 2013, EPA received 

one late comment via electronic mail on 

our proposed notification date 

extension. The comment was submitted 

by the Law Office of John M. Barth on 

behalf of the San Juan Citizens Alliance 

(SJCA). SJCA provided four reasons for 

contending that the request for an 

extension of the notification date was 

‘‘not reasonable.’’ 

First, SJCA contends that APS’s 

request for an extension is not 

reasonable because APS ‘‘knew or 

should have known’’ the ACC might 

consider deregulation in the future, but 

failed to identify it as a factor that could 

influence its choice between BART and 

the alternative to BART. It appears that 

SJCA is arguing that APS cannot base its 

request for a notification date extension 

on the potential for deregulation 

because APS should have foreseen, but 

did not identify, deregulation as an 

important factor in its decision. EPA 

disagrees. In our final action in August 

2012 that, among other things, 

established the notification date, EPA 

had determined that APS had 

adequately justified its requested 

notification date of July 1, 2013 based 

on when it anticipated receiving 

approvals, from the ACC, the California 

Public Utilities Commission, and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commissions, to purchase SCE’s share 

of Units 4 and 5 at FCPP, a key 

prerequisite for implementing the 

Alternative to BART. SJCA submitted 

comments on the proposed action and 

did not raise the ACC’s potential 

consideration of deregulation as a basis 

for not finalizing the July 1, 2013 

notification date. SJCA has not provided 

any reason that APS may not raise the 

ACC’s consideration of deregulation 

now as a justification for the notification 

date extension. The mere fact that 

deregulation may have arisen in the 

future, but was not identified as a 

potential issue, does not stop APS from 

relying on this event as a reasonable 

basis to request an extension of the 

notification date now. In any event, 

SJCA has not provided any explanation 

for how it or the public will be harmed 

if EPA extends the notification date. 

APS is still required to comply with 

BART or the alternative emission 

control strategy by the dates in our 

August 2012 final rule. 

Second, SJCA asserts that APS’s 

request for the extension, by letter dated 

June 19, 2013, was untimely because the 

ACC discussed potential deregulation 

on May 9, 2013 and advised APS of this 

action on May 23, 2013. SJCA does not 

provide any explanation about how this 

brief delay in requesting an extension of 

the compliance date makes APS’s 

request unreasonable. As noted above, 

APS has not requested, and EPA has not 

proposed, to extend the actual 

compliance dates for BART or the 

Alternative to BART. SJCA has not 

claimed that extension of the 

notification date to December 31, 2013, 

results in any harm to its members or 

the public. In any event, the brief time 

that elapsed before APS submitted a 

request to EPA for an extension of the 

notification date was not unreasonable. 

Third, SJCA argues that the ACC is 

only conducting an information 

gathering proceeding concerning 

deregulation and such a proceeding is 

not adequate to justify extending the 

notification date. Again, EPA disagrees 

with the commenter. APS requested a 

modest extension of the notification 

date based on the current uncertainty 

regarding the ACC’s consideration of 

deregulation and the potential for a 

deregulated electric market to influence 

APS’s decisions related to FCPP. None 

of the information SJCA submitted is 

sufficient to allow EPA to determine 

that the ACC’s proceeding to receive 

and consider comments on deregulation 

is not a reasonable justification for 

extending the notification date. SJCA 

has not provided any facts showing that 

the potential for deregulation would not 

affect APS’s decisions related to FCPP 

or that it or any other member of the 

public is harmed by the notification 

date extension. As noted above, EPA is 

not extending the dates on which APS 

must demonstrate FCPP is in 

compliance with the BART emissions 

limit or the alternative emission control 

strategy. 

Finally, SJCA states that it is 

unreasonable to extend the notification 

date to December 31, 2013 and that 

October 31, 2013 should be sufficient. 

EPA disagrees. SJCA has not 

demonstrated that a six-month 

extension for APS to provide 

notification is not reasonable. In fact, 

Exhibit 2 to the SJCA comment letter 

highlights the uncertainty of the timing 

of the ACC’s examination of 

deregulation. Exhibit 2 shows that, as of 

July 1, 2013, the ACC’s timeline for 

examining deregulation was ‘‘tentative,’’ 

and the understanding of Commissioner 

Robert L. Burns was ‘‘that the goal is to 

address the issue at a September or 

October Open Meeting.’’ 7 Thus, Exhibit 

2 does not provide enough certainty in 

the timing of ACC’s review and 

consideration of comments on 

deregulation to indicate that a 

notification date of October 31, 2013 

would be sufficient or more reasonable 

than December 31, 2013. SJCA has also 

failed to provide any reason that it or 

any other member of the public will be 

harmed from the extension of the 

notification date. APS is required to 

continue to comply with the dates it 

will come into compliance with BART 

or the alternative. 

In summary, the four points raised by 

SJCA in its late comment do not provide 

sufficient information for EPA to change 

its proposal to extend APS’s BART 

notification date from July 1, 2013 to 

December 31, 2013. EPA is finalizing its 

proposal, and APS is required to notify 

EPA on December 31, 2013, whether 

FCPP will install and operate emissions 

controls to meet the BART limitation for 

Units 1–5 in 2017, or implement the 

alternative emissions control strategy by 

closing Units 1, 2 and 3 in January 2014 

and installing controls to meet a NOX

emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu on 

Units 4 and 5 in July 2018. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This action extends the date for a 

single source to notify EPA regarding its 

decision to implement BART or an 

alternative emission control strategy. 

This type of action for a single source 

is exempt from review under Executive 

Orders (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the 

action merely extends a notification 

date, it does not impose an information 

collection burden and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act does not apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 60703 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final action on small 

entities, I certify that this final action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The owners of FCPP are not 

small entities, and the extended 

notification date was requested by the 

operator and co-owner of FCPP. See 

Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. 

FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Federal agencies must also develop a 

plan to provide notice to small 

governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory 

requirements. The plan must enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. This rule merely extends 

a notification date in an existing federal 

implementation plan for FCPP by six 

months. Thus, this rule is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of UMRA. 

This final rule is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

final rule does not impose regulatory 

requirements on any government entity. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or in the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

extends a notification date by six 

months. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule 

may have tribal implications because 

FCPP is located on the Navajo Nation 

Indian Reservation. However, the rule 

will neither impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing the 

BART regulations that were finalized on 

August 24, 2012, for FCPP to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. During the 

comment period for prior EPA actions 

related to the EPA’s BART FIP for FCPP, 

the Navajo Nation raised concerns to 

EPA about the potential economic 

impacts of our BART determination on 

the Navajo Nation. EPA consulted the 

Navajo Nation regarding those concerns. 

Additional details of our consultation 

with the Navajo Nation are provided in 

sections III.H and IV.F of our final 

rulemaking published on August 24, 

2012 (77 FR 51620). EPA notified the 

Navajo Nation Environmental Protection 

Agency regarding the request from APS 

to extend the notification date on June 

25, 2013. EPA did not receive a request 

from the Navajo Nation to consult on 

this six-month extension of the 

notification date for FCPP. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. This 

action addresses a notification date 

required for regional haze and visibility 

protection. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is exempt under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This final rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60704 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This final rule does not 

change any applicable emission limit for 

FCPP nor does it extend the compliance 

deadline under BART or the Alternative 

to BART. This final rule merely extends 

the date, by six months, by which the 

operator of FCPP must notify EPA of its 

elected compliance strategy. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s final action under 

section 801 because this is a rule of 

particular applicability and only applies 

to one facility, the Four Corner Power 

Plant. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 2, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Indians, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

Dioxide. 

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

Dated: September 24, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 49—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 49 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 49.5512 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 49.5512 Federal Implementation Plan 

Provisions for Four Corners Power Plant, 

Navajo Nation. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) By January 1, 2013, the owner or 

operator shall submit a letter to the 

Regional Administrator updating EPA of 

the status of lease negotiations and 

regulatory approvals required to comply 

with paragraph (i)(3) of this section. By 

December 31, 2013, the owner or 

operator shall notify the Regional 

Administrator by letter whether it will 

comply with paragraph (i)(2) of this 

section or whether it will comply with 

paragraph (i)(3) of this section and shall 

submit a plan and time table for 

compliance with either paragraph (i)(2) 

or (3) of this section. The owner or 

operator shall amend and submit this 

amended plan to the Regional 

Administrator as changes occur. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–24112 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899; FRL–9901–44– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Illinois; 

Redesignation of the Chicago Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking several related 

actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

affecting the Chicago area and the state 

of Illinois for the 1997 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard). EPA is determining that 

the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IllinoisIndiana (IL-IN) area is attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard based on quality 

assured, state-certified monitoring data 

for all PM2.5 monitoring sites in this area 

from 2007–2012. EPA is granting a 

request from the state of Illinois to 

redesignate the Chicago area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. EPA is approving, as a 

revision of the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL-IN area through 2025. 

EPA is approving Illinois’ 

comprehensive 2002 Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC), ammonia, 

and primary PM2.5 emission inventories 

for the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is 

approving Illinois’ 2008 and 2025 NOX

and primary PM2.5 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Chicago area and finding these MVEBs 

as adequate for use in transportation 

conformity determinations. The Chicago 

area includes: Cook, DuPage, Kane, 

Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux 

Sable and Goose Lake Townships in 

Grundy County, and Oswego Township 

in Kendall County. The Chicago-GaryLake County, IL-IN area also includes 

Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, 

which have been previously 

redesignated to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hardcopy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Edward 

Doty, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 

886–6057, before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES