Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0489-0009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Source Specific Federal Implementation Plans: Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant; Navajo Nation
Posted Date: 2013-10-02T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60700-60704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24112]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 coal-
fired 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

[[Page 60701]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letter from Susan Kidd, Director Environmental Policies 
and Programs, Arizona Public Service, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 31, 2012.
    \3\ APS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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.
    \5\ http://www.azcc.gov/Divisions/Administration/About/Letters/5-23-13%20Retail%20Competition%2013-0135.pdf.
    \6\ Form 8-K was appended to the June 19, 2013 letter from Ann 
Becker to Jared Blumenfeld.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 60702]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exhibit 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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,

[[Page 60704]]

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]

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

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

0
2. Section 49.5512 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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