The Navajo Nation stated that it was not consulted during the
development of the ANPR and indicated that in August of 2009, one day
prior to the ANPR for NGS and FCPP, EPA made a courtesy call to the
President of the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation believes that if
early and meaningful consultation with the Nation had occurred this
could have led to an adequate analysis of BART controls and careful
examination of non-air quality impacts.
    The Gila River Indian Community expressed similar concerns
regarding the lack of consultation. During a consultation on August 7,
2012, the commenter stated that it was their understanding that EPA
would describe to the Community the proposed regulation prior to the
rulemaking being issued. Instead, the commenter said, EPA called the
night before issuing the rule, which the commenter said was inadequate
and inconsistent with the expectations regarding consultation. The
commenter also understood that the rule was to be proposed in September
2012 but it was not proposed until January 2013 and in the meantime
several stakeholders provided additional input to the Agency. However,
the Community was not consulted during this time. In addition, the
Community expects an explanation of the final rule after it is issued
by EPA.
    The Hopi Tribe also commented on the lack of consultation and
involvement of tribes in developing the regulation. The commenter
submitted multiple letters to EPA indicating its concern about not
being involved in the development of the rule or consulted but without
providing pertinent information. In one of the letters, the commenter
said that the government acknowledged the Hopi Tribe as a stakeholder
and the intention to work with the Tribe; however, contrary to
statements in the Joint Federal Agency Statement on NGS to work with
tribes, the Hopi Tribe was not included in the TWG.
    The Hopi Tribe specifically indicated that it was denied
information regarding the TWG Alternative and the development of the
alternative, something the commenter pointed out is essential in order
to provide relevant and useful comments to EPA. The commenter said that
it has submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to DOI,
which included documentation related to NGS and information documenting
DOI's representation of the Hopi Tribe during the negotiation of the
TWG Alternative. The commenter said that until it has the information
requested via FOIA, it is not able to provide written comments on the
TWG Alternative.
    The Hopi Tribe asserted that it is has been treated differently
than other tribal stakeholders in the TWG Agreement. For example, the
TWG Agreement states that SRP will advocate to EPA the Navajo Nation's
treatment as state (TAS) status. The Hopi Tribe indicated that the TWG
Alternative protects the economic interests of the Navajo Nation and
the Gila Indian Community but compromises the coal revenues of the Hopi
Tribe and contains no mitigation measures for the significant and
adverse economic impact. The Hopi Tribe indicated that it will be
disproportionately and adversely affected by the reduced capacity at
NGS.
    The Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians expressed similar concerns
regarding the lack of involvement of Indian Tribes and demanded that
EPA consider the requests of the Kaibab Paiute. The commenter referred
to the TWG Agreement and requested that the Kaibab Paiute Indian
Reservation receive $2.5 million of the $5 million

Local Benefit Fund designated for community projects within 100 miles
of NGS (the reservation is 60 miles from NGS). Also, the commenter said
that the TWG Agreement promotes the development of clean energy, and
based on that provision of the agreement, the commenter requested a 250
MW solar farm.
    The Tohono O'odham Nation objected that a number of Indian nations
that would be substantially affected by the rule were excluded from the
TWG. The commenter noted that it is particularly concerned with
maintaining CAP water delivery under whatever rule is finalized by EPA.
    Response: EPA understands the importance of NGS to numerous tribes
located in Arizona and the importance of our trust responsibility to
Indian tribes affected by NGS. As a result, we have attempted to ensure
that these tribes were consulted throughout the rulemaking process. We
respectfully disagree that there was a lack of consultation with
tribes.
    EPA agrees with the Navajo Nation that Executive Order 13175
defines ``policies that have tribal implications'' to refer to
regulations or other actions that have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes.\146\ We disagree that EPA's discussion of
direct compliance costs on tribal governments is not a correct standard
for consideration and note that section 5(b) of EO 13175 further states
that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2000-11-13/pdf/WCPD-2000-11-13-Pg2806-2.pdf.

    To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall
promulgate any regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that is not required by statute . . .

    In our discussion of EO 13175, we included consideration of
substantial direct compliance costs to tribal governments, as well as
the broader consideration of substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes. We conclude that our proposed action on NGS will have
tribal implications and may have substantial indirect effects on
tribes, but will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments. We also conclude that this rule is
appropriate under the CAA because NGS is a facility that is subject to
BART.
    In our proposed rule, EPA provided a document that listed all
written or telephone correspondence as well as consultation meetings
between EPA and Tribes on NGS. Although the commenter suggests that
EPA's telephone call to the President of the Navajo Nation one day
prior to the signature of the ANPR in August 2009 was our first
communication with the Nation on the subject, we note that the timeline
includes a meeting between EPA and the Navajo Nation that occurred two
months prior to the ANPR to discuss EPA's plans to move forward on an
ANPR related to our ongoing BART analyses for FCPP and NGS.\147\ EPA
further notes that the ANPR was not a proposed rule. The ANPR was an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where we provided the public
advance notice of our intention to develop rulemakings for FCPP and
NGS. EPA included some initial analysis of two of the BART factors and
stated that the ``specific purpose of this ANPR is for EPA to collect
additional information.'' \148\ Subsequent to the publication of the
ANPR in the Federal Register on August 28, 2009, and prior to our
proposed rule on NGS, EPA held four consultation meetings with tribes
in 2009, eight consultation meetings with tribes in 2010, eight
consultation meetings in 2011, and ten consultation meetings with
tribes in 2012.\149\ Of these meetings, at least eight were held as
group consultation sessions where all tribes in Arizona were invited to
participate and were provided the opportunity to request individual
consultation meetings as well.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See listed item indicating consultation meeting on June
10, 2009 between Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 9, and President Joe Shirley, Jr., of the Navajo Nation, to
discuss moving forward on the ANPR for Four Corners Power Plant and
NGS. See document titled ``2013--0109 Timeline of all tribal
consultations on NGS.docx'' in document number 0005 in the docket
for this rule.
    \148\ See 74 FR 44313 at 44314 (August 28, 2009).
    \149\ See document titled ``2013--0109 Timeline of all tribal
consultation on NGS.pdf'' in document number 0005 in the docket for
the rule at and document titled ``Updated Timeline of all Tribal
Consultation on NGS--for Final Rule.pdf'' in the docket for the
rule.
    \150\ Id., and see, e.g., document 0008 in the docket for the
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community,
the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Pascua
Yaqui Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, and the Yavapai-Apache
Nation, and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona submitted comments to
EPA on the ANPR. EPA summarized and provided responses to comments
received from tribal governments in the TSD for our proposed rule on
NGS.\151\ The primary concerns expressed by the tribal governments
related to the economic importance of NGS and the relationship of NGS
with CAP and Indian Water Settlement Agreements. The Navajo Nation also
commented on specific aspects of the five-factor analysis for BART, and
the Hopi Tribe submitted an economic study it had commissioned that
expresses concern that regulatory actions would force NGS to close. In
our proposed rule and in our development of our proposed framework for
BART Alternatives, including the credit for early installation of LNB/
SOFA, EPA recognized the importance of NGS to tribes in Arizona, both
in contributing to the economies of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe,
and in serving as a source of electrical power for CAP and a source of
revenue to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, as related
to water settlement agreements with numerous tribes in Arizona. Based
on this recognition, EPA put forth additional options for greater
flexibility in the compliance timeframe and invited stakeholders to
develop and submit additional BART Alternatives to EPA for
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See page 25 and 26 of the TSD to the Proposed Rule,
document 0014 in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of our proposed rule on February 5, 2013,
EPA engaged in 17 consultation meetings with tribes prior to the
January 2014 close of the public comment period.\152\ Of these
meetings, at least two were held as group consultation sessions where
all tribes in Arizona were invited to participate and were provided the
opportunity to request individual consultation meetings as well.\153\
EPA received comment letters on our proposal and Supplemental Proposal
from the Navajo Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, the Tohono
O'odham Nation, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tonto Apache Tribe,
the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and the Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians.\154\ At the request of two tribes for additional time beyond
January 6, 2014 to submit comments, EPA agreed that we would consider
comments from tribal governments submitted after the close of the
comment period. The White Mountain Apache Tribe submitted comments on
February 5, 2014.\155\ In addition, in response to their request to EPA
for information related to NGS, we provided responsive documents to the
Hopi Tribe on January 7, 2014.\156\ As shown in additional
correspondence,

the Hopi Tribe requested additional time to submit comments, and EPA
again agreed to consider late comments from the Hopi Tribe.\157\ EPA
did not receive any further comments from the Hopi Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See document titled ``Updated Timeline of all Tribal
Consultation on NGS--for Final Rule.pdf'' in the docket for the
rule.
    \153\ Id.
    \154\ See comment numbers 0340, 0317, 0387, 0402, 0419, and 0421
in the docket for the rule.
    \155\ See comment number 0440 in the docket for the rule.
    \156\ See document titled ``2014--0107 EPA Letter to Chairman
Honanie with Enclosure 1.pdf'' in the docket for this rule.
    \157\ See document titled ``2014--0131 Letter from Chairman
Honanie.pdf'' and document titled ``2014--0206 EPA Response to
Chairman Honanie--Hopi Tribe.pdf'' in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several tribes also expressed concern that the Technical Work Group
included only two tribes, the Navajo Nation and the Gila River Indian
Community, and excluded numerous other tribes that also have a
significant economic interest in NGS. EPA recognizes that many tribes
were not included in the development of the TWG Agreement. EPA was not
involved in the formation of the TWG or any of the negotiations between
the members of the TWG in developing the TWG Agreement. In addition,
our evaluation of the TWG Agreement was for the sole purpose of
determining whether Appendix B to the TWG Agreement meets our framework
for a ``better than BART'' Alternative. Therefore, although EPA agrees
that many tribes have economic interest in NGS and CAP, EPA does not
have any role in the distribution of funds described in the TWG
Agreement.
    Based on numerous consultation meetings between high-level
officials from EPA and elected tribal leaders, beginning in 2009 and
extending into 2013, and our development of flexible options for BART
Alternatives in response to comments from tribes, EPA considers our
consultation on NGS to be consistent with EO 13175 and EPA's policy to
engage in early and meaningful consultation with tribes.\158\ EPA will
provide notification of our Final Rule, in writing, to all tribal
governments that submitted comments to EPA on our Proposed Rule or
Supplemental Proposal and will provide our written responses to their
specific comments. All written correspondence from tribal governments
to EPA regarding NGS and our proposed BART determination is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ The EPA policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes is posted on the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/consult-policy.htm.
    \159\ See Appendix A (List of Written Comments) to the RTC and
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Final Action

    On February 5, 2013, EPA issued a proposed BART analysis of
NOX controls at NGS. Based on that analysis, EPA proposed a
NOX emission limit of 0.055 lb/MMBtu for all three units
within five years of a Final Rule. Our proposed rule also set out a
framework for evaluating BART alternatives at NGS. EPA proposed a
``better than BART'' alternative (Alternative 1), consistent with this
proposed framework, requiring compliance with a NOX emission
limit of 0.055 lb/MMBtu on one unit per year in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
EPA invited stakeholders to submit additional alternatives, consistent
with our proposed framework for ``better than BART'' alternatives, to
EPA for consideration.
    On July 26, 2013, a stakeholder group, known as the TWG, submitted
an agreement among seven diverse entities (TWG Agreement) that included
an additional BART alternative (Appendix B to the TWG Agreement). In
general, this alternative includes closure of one unit at NGS, or
curtailment of net generating capacity by an equivalent amount, in 2019
and compliance with an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on two units at
NGS in 2030. The TWG Agreement also included a provision requiring the
owners of NGS to cease conventional coal-fired generation at NGS by the
end of 2044. EPA independently evaluated Appendix B to the TWG
Agreement to determine whether it complied with the framework we put
forth in our Proposed Rule, as well as the statutory and regulatory
requirements in the CAA and the RHR.
    On October 22, 2013, EPA published a Supplemental Proposal. Our
Supplemental Proposal contained a detailed evaluation of Appendix B to
the TWG Agreement along with a discussion of our legal rationale for
proposing to approve requirements consistent with the TWG Agreement as
a ``better than BART'' alternative. Our Supplemental Proposal and this
Final Rule refer to our regulations that are generally consistent with
Appendix B to the TWG Agreement as the ``TWG Alternative.'' The
Supplemental Proposal (i.e., the TWG Alternative) included regulatory
requirements to achieve substantial NOX reductions over
time, as well as a cap in cumulative NOX emissions from NGS
over 2009-2044 (2009-2044 NOX Cap) to ensure that lifetime
emissions from NGS under the TWG Alternative do not exceed lifetime
emissions that would have otherwise occurred under our proposed BART
determination for NGS (BART Benchmark).
    Based on our review of all comments we received on the Proposed
Rule and Supplemental Proposal, EPA is taking action to finalize
requirements consistent with the TWG Agreement, as a ``better than
BART'' Alternative (TWG Alternative) put forth in our Supplemental
Proposal. EPA is also taking final action to determine that a BART
Benchmark, consistent with our proposed BART determination, is
appropriate for establishing the 2009-2044 NOX Cap under the
TWG Alternative. EPA is not finalizing our proposed BART determination
for NGS in the regulatory requirements of this Final Rule, and EPA is
not taking action to finalize Alternative 1, the ``better than BART''
Alternative we put forth in our Proposed Rule.
    This Final Action is expected to result in over an 80 percent
reduction in NOX emissions and to significantly reduce the
impact of NGS on visibility at 11 mandatory Class I Federal areas.
EPA's action to finalize requirements consistent with the TWG Agreement
as a ``better than BART'' alternative for NGS will ensure that lifetime
NOX emissions from NGS do not exceed the BART Benchmark.

VI. Administrative Requirements

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

    This action will finalize a source-specific FIP for a single
generating source. This type of action is exempt from review under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of information'' is
defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . . identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons. . . .'' 44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the final FIP applies to a single facility,
Navajo Generating Station, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

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 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 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 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 Navajo
Generating Station is not a small entity and the FIP for Navajo
Generating Station being finalized today does not impose any compliance
requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). We recognize that several
tribes located in Arizona have expressed concerns regarding potential
indirect effects of this Final Rule; however, these indirect effects
are not direct compliance costs or requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule will impose an enforceable duty on the private sector
owners of Navajo Generating Station. However, this rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million (in 1996 dollars) or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
EPA's estimate for the total annual cost to install and operate SCR on
all three units at NGS if it had been required to comply with BART does
not exceed $100 million (in 1996 dollars) in any one year. Because we
are finalizing requirements consistent with Appendix B to the TWG
Agreement, which provides more flexibility than EPA's proposed BART
determination and would, at most, require installation and operation of
SCR on two units, rather than three units at NGS, EPA expects the total
annual cost of implementing the TWG Alternative to also not exceed $100
million (in 1996 dollars). Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This action 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 rule will not impose direct compliance costs on
the Navajo Nation, and will not preempt Navajo law. This final action
will reduce the emissions of NOX from a single source, the
Navajo Generating Station.

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 final action requires emission
reductions of NOX at a specific stationary source located in
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.

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

    Subject to the 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.
EO 13175 defines ``policies that have tribal implications'' to refer to
regulations or other actions that have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes.
    EPA has concluded that this Final Action will have tribal
implications based on the direct relationship between NGS and the
Navajo Nation. In addition, EPA anticipates that the following direct
and indirect effects may result from the TWG Alternative and
Reclamation's ownership interest in NGS: Decreased revenues to the Hopi
Tribe and the Navajo Nation associated with the closure of one unit or
curtailment of electricity generation in 2019; and increased water
costs to tribes associated with the installation of controls to meet an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu in 2030. However, it will neither pre-
empt Tribal law nor impose substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments (no tribal government is an owner or participant in
NGS and therefore no tribal government will be required to pay direct
costs of compliance). We note that the Navajo Nation has the option to
purchase up to a 170 MW share of NGS in 2019. EPA understands that the
Navajo Nation has not yet made its decision and therefore, currently,
no tribal government is a Participant in NGS.
    The owners of NGS, together with the Navajo Nation, the Gila River
Indian Community, and several other stakeholders, submitted the TWG
Agreement to EPA that would provide compliance flexibility to the
owners and result in greater reasonable progress than BART toward the
national visibility goal. This TWG Alternative involves closure or
curtailment of production on one unit of NGS and installation of add-on
pollution controls to the remaining two units. EPA issued a
Supplemental Proposal proposing to find that the TWG Alternative met
the requirements of the CAA and RHR. Today, EPA is finalizing
requirements consistent with the TWG Agreement. Because the TWG
Alternative involves the closure or curtailment of production on one
unit and an associated decline in the amount of coal mined and
combusted, to the extent that taxes or royalties paid to the Hopi Tribe
and the Navajo Nation by the operators of Navajo Generating Station and
the Kayenta Mine, are tied to the amount of coal that is mined or the
amount of electricity that is generated at NGS, the revenues to the
Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation may be expected to decline. In addition,
under the TWG Alternative, when the installation of add-on pollution
controls occurs in 2030, EPA expects the CAWCD variable OM&R water rate
to increase, affecting tribes with allocations of CAP water.
    EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. EPA first put forth an

ANPR on August 28, 2009 to accept comment on preliminary information
provided by FCPP and NGS and to begin the consultation process with the
Federal Land Managers and affected tribes.
    EPA received numerous comments on the ANPR from tribes and tribal
organizations, including the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Gila River
Indian Community, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Tohono O'odham Nation,
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Yavapai-Apache
Nation, and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Comments from the
Navajo Nation on NGS and from the Hopi Tribe focused on the significant
contribution of coal-related royalties, taxes, and employment at NGS
and the Kayenta Mine to the economies of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi
Tribe. Comments from the Gila River Indian Community, the Tohono
O'odham Nation, and other tribes located in Arizona focused on the
importance of continued operation of NGS as a source of power to CAP,
in order for the federal government to meet obligations under existing
water settlement agreements. The importance to tribes of continued
operation of NGS and affordable water costs cannot be overemphasized.
    Given the extent of federal and tribal interests in NGS and the
federal government's trust responsibility to Indian tribes, on January
4, 2013, EPA, DOI, and DOE signed a joint federal agency statement
committing to collaborate on several short- and long-term goals,
including analyzing and pursuing strategies for providing clean,
affordable and reliable power, affordable and sustainable water, and
sustainable economic development to key stakeholders who currently
depend on NGS.\160\ The partner agencies have already begun to work
together with stakeholders to identify and undertake actions that
support implementation of BART, including seeking funding to cover
expenses for pollution control or other necessary upgrades for the
federal portion of NGS. The agencies have also begun work to jointly
support a phase 2 report to analyze a full range of clean energy
options for NGS. Finally, the agencies intend to work with stakeholders
to develop a roadmap for achieving long-term, innovative clean energy
solutions for NGS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See Joint Federal Agency Statement Regarding Navajo
Generating Station, dated January 4, 2013, in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our February 5, 2013 Proposed Rule, EPA exercised discretion to
include in our analysis of Factor 2 (Energy and Non-Air Quality
Impacts), an examination of the viability of continued operation of NGS
if new NOX controls are required, to address the concern
expressed by numerous tribes that a BART determination requiring SCR
would force NGS to close. Our analysis showed that although SCR would
increase the cost of electricity generation at NGS, installing and
operating SCR at NGS would still be less costly than replacing NGS with
power purchased from elsewhere in the West.\161\ However, we also
recognized that the timing of regulatory compliance is an important
consideration given potential ownership changes and other requirements
related to the extension of the NGS lease and other rights-of-way
agreements. As part of our Factor 2 analysis, we also estimated
potential water rate increases to tribes.\162\ As discussed in our
proposed rule, EPA considers the potential economic impacts to tribes
to argue for flexibility in the compliance timeframe for NGS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See Factor 2 analysis, 78 FR 8281-8284 (February 5, 2013).
    \162\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to our proposed BART determination for NGS, EPA also
proposed a framework for evaluating alternatives to BART that provide
options for flexibility in achieving emission reductions at NGS. EPA
proposed an alternative to BART consistent with our proposed framework
and invited stakeholders to submit other alternatives to BART that
reduce NOX emissions at NGS while providing long-term,
sustainable benefits for tribes.\163\ We noted that the extended
timeframe for compliance would not, in itself, avoid or mitigate
increases in water rates for tribes located in Arizona; however, it
would provide time for the collaborating federal agencies to explore
options to avoid or minimize potential impacts to tribes, including
seeking funding to cover the expenses for the federal portion of
pollution control at NGS.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Id. at 8291.
    \164\ Id. at 8289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following our Proposed Rule, the TWG, which included the Navajo
Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, and the Interior, together
with four additional groups, submitted their agreement (TWG Agreement)
that contained an additional BART alternative for consideration
(Appendix B to the TWG Agreement). Although EPA was not part of the
TWG, we note that the TWG Agreement included seven elements, including
elements directly or indirectly related to tribes, i.e., commitments by
Interior to mitigate potential impacts from EPA's final BART rule to
Affected Tribes and a commitment by SRP to make funds available for a
Local Benefit Fund for community improvement projects within 100 miles
of NGS or the Kayenta Mine.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ As described in our Supplemental Proposal (78 FR 62512,
October 22, 2013), the seven elements of the TWG Agreement were (1)
a description of a ``Reasonable Progress Alternative to BART''
(Appendix B to the TWG Agreement); (2) a study of options by
Reclamation for replacing the federal share of energy being
generated from NGS with low-emitting energy; (3) commitments by
Interior to reduce or offset emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) by three percent per year and facilitate the
development of clean energy resources; (4) commitments by Interior
to mitigate potential impacts from EPA's final BART rule to Affected
Tribes; (5) a commitment by Interior to carry out the Phase 2 Study
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the purposes
of studying options for the future of NGS; (6) a commitment by SRP
to make funds available for a Local Benefit Fund for community
improvement projects within 100 miles of NGS or the Kayenta Mine;
and (7) a summary of obligations of the Parties to the Agreement and
miscellaneous legal provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has met with tribes on numerous occasions to discuss the
significance of NGS to tribal economies and tribal water interests in
Arizona.\166\ Consultations with tribes included potential economic
impacts associated with a BART determination for NGS, as well as
potential impacts from EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See document titled ``Updated Timeline of All Tribal
Consultations on NGS for Final Rule.docx'' in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognition of the unusual complexity of regulating NGS,
representatives from EPA, including the Assistant Administrator and the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation and
the Regional Administrator for Region 9, visited NGS and affected
communities in the area. EPA officials have also met with additional
stakeholders, at various locations, including EPA offices in San
Francisco, California and Washington, DC, and offices of individual
tribal governing councils and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
    Following the publication of our proposed rule on February 5, 2013,
EPA engaged in 17 consultation meetings with tribes prior to the
January 2014 close of the public comment period.\167\ Of these
meetings, at least two were held as group consultation sessions where
all tribes in Arizona were invited to participate and were provided the
opportunity to request individual consultation meetings as well.\168\
EPA received comment letters on our proposal and Supplemental Proposal

from the Navajo Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, the Tohono
O'odham Nation, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tonto Apache Tribe,
the San Carlos Apache Tribe, and the Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians.\169\ At the request of two tribes for additional time beyond
January 6, 2014 to submit comments, EPA exercised our discretion to
accept comments from tribal governments after the close of the comment
period. The White Mountain Apache Tribe submitted comments on February
5, 2014.\170\ In addition, in response to their request to EPA for
information related to NGS, we provided responsive documents to the
Hopi Tribe on January 7, 2014.\171\ As shown in additional
correspondence, the Hopi Tribe requested additional time to submit
comments, and EPA continued to exercise our discretion to accept late
comments from the Hopi Tribe.\172\ Our separate response to comments
document contains a summary of all substantive comments and EPA's
responses to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See document titled ``Updated Timeline of all Tribal
Consultation on NGS--for Final Rule.pdf'' in the docket for the
rule.
    \168\ Id.
    \169\ See comment numbers 0340, 0317, 0387, 0402, 0419, and 0421
in the docket for the rule.
    \170\ See comment number 0440 in the docket for the rule.
    \171\ See document titled ``2014--0107 EPA Letter to Chairman
Honanie with Enclosure 1.pdf'' in the docket for this rule.
    \172\ See document titled ``2014--0131 Letter from Chairman
Honanie.pdf'' and document titled ``2014--0206 EPA Response to
Chairman Honanie--Hopi Tribe.pdf'' in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several tribes expressed concern that the Technical Work Group
included only two tribes, the Navajo Nation and the Gila River Indian
Community, and excluded numerous other tribes that also have a
significant economic interest in NGS. Several tribes also asserted that
the Proposed Rule and Supplemental Proposal have disproportionate
impacts on tribes with CAP water settlements and urged EPA to develop
an alternative regulation that does not place an additional burden on
Indian tribes. Another tribe requested that a portion of the funds
identified in the TWG Agreement be designated to their tribe.
    EPA recognizes that many tribes did not participate in the
development of the TWG Agreement. EPA was not involved in the formation
of the Technical Work Group or any of the negotiations between the
members of the TWG in developing the TWG Agreement. In addition, our
evaluation of the TWG Agreement was for the sole purpose of determining
whether the TWG Alternative (Appendix B to the TWG Agreement) meets our
framework for a ``better than BART'' Alternative. Therefore, although
EPA agrees that many tribes have economic interests in NGS and CAP, EPA
did not have a role in the TWG Agreement and does not have any role in
the distribution of funds described in the TWG Agreement.
    EPA recognizes that our final action will have tribal implications.
Because we are taking action to finalize requirements consistent with
the TWG Agreement, EPA anticipates that increases in CAP water costs as
a result of the installation of new air pollution controls at NGS would
not occur until 2030. In addition, as stated elsewhere, EPA has
committed to collaborating with other federal agencies to explore
options to avoid or minimize potential impacts to tribes, including
seeking funding to cover the expenses for the federal portion of
pollution control at NGS.
    In summary, EPA has taken numerous steps, as described in the
preceding paragraphs, to evaluate the potential impacts on Tribes and
to identify and provide the flexibility for others to develop
alternative approaches that would meet the requirements of the CAA and
the RHR while being as sensitive as possible to concerns raised by
Tribes. Through the Joint Federal Agency Statement on NGS, the federal
government has recognized its obligations through its trust
responsibility and through its specific historical and ongoing
involvement with NGS and water rights settlements with Tribes. That
agreement reflects our commitment to ongoing engagement with affected
Tribes and to the pursuit of a long-term solution for electricity
generation that is protective of the economic interests of Tribes and
public health and the environment.
    Based on numerous consultation meetings between high-level
officials from EPA and elected tribal leaders, beginning in 2009 and
extending into 2013, and our development of flexible options for BART
Alternatives in response to comments from tribes, EPA considers our
consultation on NGS to be consistent with EO 13175 and EPA's policy to
engage in early and meaningful consultation with tribes.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ EPA's policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribes is posted on the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/consult-policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
requires emissions reductions of NOX from a single
stationary source. Because this action only applies to a single source
and is not a rule of general applicability, it is not economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a
disproportionate effect on children. However, to the extent that the
rule will reduce emissions of NOX, which contributes to
ozone formation, the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's
health by reducing air pollution that causes or exacerbates childhood
asthma and other respiratory issues.

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 not a significant regulatory action
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.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. For the measurements listed below,
there are a number of VCS that appear to have possible use in lieu of
the EPA test methods and performance specifications (40 CFR Part 60,
Appendices A and B) noted next to the measurement

requirements. It would not be practical to specify these standards in
the current rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient data on equivalency
and validation and because some are still under development. However,
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is in the process of
reviewing all available VCS for incorporation by reference into the
test methods and performance specifications of 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendices A and B. Any VCS so incorporated in a specified test method
or performance specification would then be available for use in
determining the emissions from this facility. This will be an ongoing
process designed to incorporate suitable VCS as they become available.

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,
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 increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    EPA recognizes that numerous commenters have stated that this
rulemaking has environmental justice implications because NGS, which is
among the largest coal-fired power plants in the country, is located on
the Navajo Nation. Commenters have also expressed concern that the
documents associated with this rule are too technical for community
members to understand. Some commenters have also argued that EPA should
apply the same standard to NGS as other coal-burning power plants
(e.g., Four Corners Power Plant), and that the extended compliance
timeframe for NGS is an environmental justice issue.
    Fair treatment and meaningful involvement are critical components
of environmental justice and EPA takes fair treatment and meaningful
involvement seriously. We provided numerous opportunities for tribal
governments, environmental and tribal non-governmental organizations,
and other interested stakeholders to provide input in the development
of our Proposed Rule, Supplemental Proposal, and Final Rule for NGS.
    As discussed in more detail in the RTC, EPA began our public
involvement process for a BART determination for NGS in 2009, when we
published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). During 2009
through 2012, EPA met with various stakeholders, including tribal
governments and Navajo environmental groups to discuss NGS and hear
concerns related to a BART determination for this facility.\174\ During
the 11-month comment period for our Proposed Rule, EPA continued to
meet with stakeholders to discuss our proposed BART determination for
NGS and our framework for ``better than BART'' alternatives.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See, for example, document number 0232 in the ANPR docket
at EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598, and document numbers 0008 and 0009 in the
docket for this rule at EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009.
    \175\ See, for example, document number 0150, 0152, 0166, 0173,
0302, and 0303 in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2013, the TWG submitted the TWG Agreement to EPA for
consideration. EPA posted the TWG Agreement to our docket on the same
day to provide the public an opportunity to review it.\176\ On
September 25, 2013, EPA posted a Supplemental Proposal, along with
supporting documents, to the docket to allow for early review by
interested parties.\177\ The Supplemental Proposal was published in the
Federal Register on October 22, 2013. The comment period for the
Supplemental Proposal closed on the same day as the BART proposal, on
January 6, 2014. The Supplemental Proposal also included notice of five
open house and public hearing events EPA scheduled throughout Arizona
in November 2013. The open houses allowed members of the public an
opportunity to talk with representatives from EPA and ask questions.
EPA held events at the LeChee Chapter House, located on the Navajo
Nation, as well as in Page, Arizona, and provided oral interpretation
services between English and Din[eacute] (the Navajo language). EPA
also held an event at the Hopi Day School, located in Kykotsmovi, the
seat of the Hopi tribal government.\178\ Finally, we also held events
in Phoenix and in Tucson, Arizona, to allow stakeholders in central and
southern Arizona, representing CAP water interests and several tribes
receiving CAP water, the opportunity to provide comment and talk with
representatives from EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ See document number 0122 in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    \177\ See document numbers 0182, 0183, and 0184 in the docket
for this rulemaking.
    \178\ EPA engaged with the government of the Hopi Tribe to
search for an oral interpreter between English and the Hopi
language, but the Hopi Tribe was unable to locate anyone to provide
those services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA understands that the TSD and Federal Register notices include
technical information that may be difficult to understand. EPA provided
Fact Sheets and handouts, written in plain language, at the open house
and public hearing events.\179\ EPA representatives were also present
at the events to discuss and explain our Proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ See document 0219 in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that some commenters may view the timeframe for
compliance under EPA's framework for BART Alternatives as an
environmental justice issue. We note that the Navajo Nation and other
Tribes expressed concern with the potential economic impacts of this
rulemaking. The flexibility we provided has allowed for a balance
between these considerations.
    We further note that the LNB/SOFA credit, an important component of
the timeframe under our ``better than BART'' framework, was based on
real, actual emission reductions beginning in 2009 that were voluntary
and not required by any rule or regulation. We also note that the TWG
Alternative, which calls for closure of one unit in 2019 (or equivalent
curtailment), will result not only in reductions of NOX, but
also reductions of several other pollutants, including SO2,
PM, CO2, and hazardous air pollutants. Although the
compliance date of emission limit for two units (achievable with the
installation of SCR) under the TWG Alternative is in 2030, over 2009 to
2044, the TWG Alternative will result in greater NOX
reductions than would have been achieved under BART, will result in
step-wise reductions of NOX and additional pollutants that
affect visibility or human health, and will provide an enforceable
mechanism to ensure that NGS ceases conventional coal-fired electricity
generation at NGS by the end of 2044. All of these measures will
increase the level of environmental protection for communities affected
by NGS.

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 action under section 801
because this action is a rule of particular applicability. This rule
finalizes a source-specific FIP for a single generating source.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 7, 2014. 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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations 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.

0
2. Section 49.5513 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  49.5513  Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo
Generating Station, Navajo Nation.

* * * * *
    (j)(1) Applicability. Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit
Technology limits for NOX for this plant are in addition to
the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section. The
provisions of this paragraph (j) are severable, and if any provision of
this paragraph (j), or the application of any provision of this
paragraph (j) to any owner/operator or circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other owner/operators and other
circumstances, and the remainder of this paragraph (j), will not be
affected thereby. Nothing in this paragraph (j) allows or authorizes
any Unit to emit NOX at a rate that exceeds its existing
emission limit of 0.24 lb/MMBtu as established by EPA permit AZ 08-01
issued on November 20, 2008.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below have the meaning given to
them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the Clean
Air Act and in paragraph (c) of this section. For purposes of this
paragraph (j):
    (i) 2009-2029 NOX Cap means a limit on emissions from Units 1, 2,
and 3 of no more than 416,865 tons of NOX.
    (ii) 2009-2044 NOX Cap means a limit on emissions from Units 1, 2,
and 3 of no more than 494,899 tons of NOX.
    (iii) Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted
at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel
to be combusted the entire 24-hour period.
    (iv) Coal-fired unit means any of Units 1, 2, or 3 at Navajo
Generating Station.
    (v) Continuous Emission Monitoring System or CEMS means the
equipment required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (j).
    (vi) Departing Participant means either Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power or Nevada Energy, also known as NV Energy or Nevada
Power Company.
    (vii) Emission limitation or emission limit means the federal
emissions limitation required by this paragraph.
    (viii) Existing Participant means the existing owners of NGS: Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power; Nevada Energy, also known as NV
Energy or Nevada Power Company; Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District; Arizona Public Service Company; and
Tucson Electric Company, together with the United States, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation.
    (ix) lb means pound(s).
    (x) Low-NOX Burners and Separated Over-Fire Air or LNB/SOFA means
combustion controls installed on each Unit between 2009 and 2011.
    (xi) Navajo Nation means the Navajo Nation, a federally recognized
Indian Tribe.
    (xii) NGS or Navajo Generating Station means the steam electric
generating station located on the Navajo Reservation near Page,
Arizona, consisting of Units 1, 2, and 3, each 750 MW (nameplate
rating), the switchyard facilities, and all facilities and structures
used or related thereto.
    (xiii) NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide
(NO2).
    (xiv) Owner/operator means any person(s) who own(s) or who
operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one more of the Units of the
Navajo Generating Station.
    (xv) MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).
    (xvi) Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in
the unit.
    (xvii) Unit means any of Units 1, 2, or 3 at Navajo Generating
Station.
    (xviii) Valid data means CEMs data that is not out of control as
defined in 40 CFR part 75.
    (3) ``Better than BART'' alternative for NOX. Total cumulative
NOX emissions from Units 1, 2, and 3, from January 1, 2009
to December 31, 2044, may not exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap.
The owner/operator must implement the applicable operating scenario,
under paragraph (j)(3)(i) of this section, to ensure NOX
emission reductions sufficient to maintain total cumulative
NOX emissions from Units 1, 2, and 3 below the 2009-2044
NOX Cap.
    (i) Operating scenarios to comply with 2009-2044 NOX
Cap. The owner/operator must comply with one of the following operating
scenarios based on the applicability provisions in paragraph (j)(3)(ii)
of this section.
    (A) Alternative A1. (1) By December 31, 2019, the owner/operator
must permanently cease operation of one coal-fired Unit; and
    (2) By December 31, 2030, the owner/operator must comply with a
NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling
average of 30 boiler operating days, on each of the two remaining coal-
fired Units.
    (3) The owner/operator must permanently cease operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 if total cumulative emissions of NOX from Units 1,
2, and 3, based on annual reports required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii)
of this section, exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap at any time
prior to December 31, 2044.
    (B) Alternative A2. (1) By December 31, 2019, the owner/operator
must

permanently cease operation of one coal-fired Unit; and
    (2) By December 31, 2019, the owner/operator may increase net
generating capacity of the remaining two coal-fired Units by a combined
total of no more than 189 MW. The actual increase in net generating
capacity shall be limited by the sum of 19 MW and the ownership
interest, in net MW capacity, purchased by the Navajo Nation by
December 31, 2019. Nothing in paragraph (j) of this section alters any
regulatory requirements, including those for pre-construction
permitting, associated with any increase in the net generating capacity
of the Unit(s).
    (3) By December 31, 2030, the owner/operator must comply with a
NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling
average of 30 boiler operating days, on each of the two remaining coal-
fired Units.
    (4) The owner/operator must permanently cease operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 if total cumulative emissions of NOX from Units 1,
2, and 3, based on annual reports required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii)
of this section, exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap at any time
prior to December 31, 2044.
    (C) Alternative A3. (1) By December 31, 2019, the owner/operator
must reduce the net generating capacity of NGS by no less than 561 MW.
The actual reduction in net generating capacity of NGS shall be
determined by the difference between 731 MW and the ownership interest,
in net MW capacity and limited to 170 MW, purchased by the Navajo
Nation by December 31, 2019.
    (2) By December 31, 2030, the owner/operator must comply with a
NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling
average of 30 boiler operating days, on two Units.
    (3) The owner/operator must permanently cease operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 if total cumulative emissions of NOX from Units 1,
2, and 3, based on annual reports required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii)
of this section, exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap at any time
prior to December 31, 2044.
    (D) Alternative B. (1) Total cumulative NOX emissions
from Units 1, 2, and 3 may not exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap
or the 2009-2029 NOX Cap.
    (2) The owner/operator must cease operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 if
total cumulative emissions of NOX from Units 1, 2, and 3,
based on annual reports required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this
section, exceed the 2009-2029 NOX Cap at any time prior to
December 31, 2029. The owner/operator may restart operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 after January 1, 2030, as long as total cumulative emissions
of NOX from Units 1, 2, and 3, based on annual reports
required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section, do not exceed the
2009-2044 NOX Cap.
    (3) The owner/operator must permanently cease operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 if total cumulative emissions of NOX from Units 1,
2, and 3, based on annual reports required under paragraph (j)(4)(ii)),
exceed the 2009-2044 NOX Cap at any time prior to December
31, 2044.
    (ii) Applicability of alternatives. (A) Alternative A1 applies if
by December 31, 2019, one of the following occurs:
    (1) Both of the Departing Participants retire their ownership
interests in NGS by December 31, 2019, and the Navajo Nation does not
purchase an ownership interest in NGS; or
    (2) Both of the Departing Participants sell their ownership
interests in NGS to Existing Participants, and the Navajo Nation does
not purchase an ownership interest in NGS; or
    (3) One of the Departing Participants retires its ownership
interest in NGS and the other Departing Participant sells its ownership
interest in NGS to an Existing Participant, and the Navajo Nation does
not purchase an ownership interest in NGS.
    (B) Alternative A2 applies if by December 31, 2019, one of the
following occurs:
    (1) Both of the Departing Participants sell their ownership
interests in NGS to Existing Participants, the Navajo Nation has
purchased an ownership interest in NGS, and the owner/operator has
increased net generating capacity of the two remaining Units by a
combined total of no more than 189 MW; or
    (2) One of the Departing Participants retires its ownership
interest in NGS and the other Departing Participant sells its ownership
interest in NGS to an Existing Participant, the Navajo Nation has
purchased an ownership interest in NGS, and the owner/operator has
increased net generating capacity of the two remaining Units by a
combined total of no more than 189 MW.
    (C) Alternative A3 applies if by December 31, 2019, one of the
following occurs:
    (1) Both of the Departing Participants sell their ownership
interests in NGS to Existing Participants, the Navajo Nation has
purchased an ownership interest in NGS, and the owner/operator has not
increased net generating capacity of the Units at NGS; or
    (2) One of the Departing Participants retires its ownership
interest in NGS and the other Departing Participant sells its ownership
interest in NGS to an Existing Participant, the Navajo Nation has
purchased an ownership interest in NGS, and the owner/operator has not
increased net generating capacity of the Units at NGS.
    (D) Alternative B applies if, by December 31, 2019, if one of the
following occurs:
    (1) Any of the Departing Participants sell their ownership
interests in NGS to a Party other than the Navajo Nation that is not an
Existing Participant, or
    (2) Any of the Departing Participants remains as a participant in
NGS.
    (iii) By December 22, 2044, the owner/operator shall permanently
cease conventional coal-fired electricity generation by all coal-fired
Units at NGS.
    (4) Reporting and implementation requirements for BART. (i) No
later than December 1, 2019, the owner/operator must notify EPA of the
applicable Alternative for ensuring compliance with the 2009-2044
NOX Cap.
    (ii) Beginning in 2015, and annually thereafter until the earlier
of December 22, 2044 or the date on which the owner/operator ceases
conventional coal-fired electricity generation by all coal-fired Units
at NGS, the owner/operator must report to EPA, the annual heat input,
the annual emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and
NOX from the previous full calendar year. In addition, the
owner/operator must also report total cumulative emissions of
NOX from NGS to assure compliance with the 2009-2044
NOX Cap and the 2009-2029 NOX Cap (if
applicable). The owner/operator must make this report available to the
public, either through a link on its Web site or directly on its Web
site. The report must be made available within 30 days of the submittal
deadline associated with the annual emission inventory required by the
Part 71 Operating Permit for NGS.
    (iii) No later than December 31, 2020, the owner/operator must
submit an application to revise its existing Part 71 Operating Permit
to incorporate the requirements and emission limits of the applicable
Alternative to BART under paragraph (j)(3) of this section. The Part 71
Operating Permit for NGS must incorporate practically enforceable
limits for NOX of 0.24 lb/MMBtu, on a 30[hyphen]day rolling
average basis, for each Unit equipped with LNB/SOFA, and 0.07 lb/MMBtu,
on a rolling average basis of 30 boiler operating days, for each Unit
equipped with SCR, as federally enforceable permit conditions.
    (iv) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (j)(4)(i), (ii)
and (iii) of this section, if Alternative B applies, the owner/operator
must submit annual Emission Reduction Plans to the Regional
Administrator.

    (A) No later than December 31, 2019 and annually thereafter through
December 31, 2028, the owner/operator must submit an Emission Reduction
Plan containing anticipated year-by-year emissions from Units 1, 2, and
3 covering the period from 2020 to 2029 that will assure that the
operation of NGS will result in emissions of NOX that do not
exceed the 2009-2029 NOX Cap. The Emission Reduction Plan
may contain several potential operating scenarios and must set forth
the past annual actual emissions and the projected emissions for each
potential operating scenario. Each potential operating scenario must
demonstrate compliance with the 2009-2029 NOX Cap. The
Emission Reduction Plan shall identify emission reduction measures that
may include, but are not limited to, the installation of advanced
emission controls, a reduction in generation output, or other operating
strategies determined by the owner/operator. The owner/operator may
revise the potential operating scenarios set forth in the Emission
Reduction Plan, provided the revised plan ensure that NOX
emissions remain below the 2009-2029 NOX Cap.
    (B) No later than December 31, 2029 and annually thereafter, the
owner/operator shall submit an Emission Reduction Plan containing year-
by-year emissions covering the period from January 1, 2030 to December
31, 2044 that will assure that the operation of NGS will result in
emissions of NOX that do not exceed the 2009-2044
NOX Cap. The Emission Reduction Plan shall identify emission
reduction measures that may include, but are not limited to, the
installation of advanced emission controls, a reduction in generation
output, or other operating strategies determined by the owner/operator.
The owner/operator may revise the potential operating scenarios set
forth in the Emission Reduction Plan, provided the revised plan ensure
that NOX emissions remain below the 2009-2044 NOX
Cap.
    (C) The requirement to submit annual Emission Reduction Plans
beginning no later than December 31, 2019, shall be incorporated into
the Part 71 Operating Permit for NGS as federally enforceable permit
conditions.
    (5) Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). (i) At all times,
the owner/operator of each unit must maintain, calibrate, and operate a
CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75,
to accurately measure NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from each unit. All hourly valid data will be used to
determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX
in paragraph (j)(3) of this section for each unit. If the CEMs data is
not valid, that CEMs data shall be treated as missing data and not used
to calculate the emission average. CEMs data does not need to be bias
adjusted as defined in 40 CFR part 75. Each required CEMS must obtain
valid data for at least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an
annual basis.
    (ii) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to
these Part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be
calculated for both the NOX pounds per hour measurement and
the heat input measurement. The calculation of NOX pounds
per hour and heat input relative accuracy shall be evaluated each time
the CEMS undergo relative accuracy testing.
    (6) Compliance determination for NOX emission limits. (i)
Compliance with the NOX emission limits under paragraphs
(j)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined on a rolling average
basis of thirty (30) Boiler Operating Days on a unit by unit basis.
Compliance shall be calculated in accordance with the following
procedure: Sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the Unit
during the current Boiler Operating Day and the previous twenty-nine
(29) Boiler Operating Days; sum the total heat input to the Unit in
MMBtu during the current Boiler Operating Day and the previous twenty-
nine (29) Boiler Operating Days; and divide the total number of pounds
of NOX by the total heat input in MMBtu during the thirty
(30) Boiler Operating Days. A new 30 Boiler Operating Day rolling
average shall be calculated for each new Boiler Operating Day. Each 30
Boiler Operating Day rolling average shall include all emissions that
occur during periods within any Boiler Operating Day, including
emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (ii) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is not
available for any hour for a Unit, that heat input and NOX
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation for that 30 boiler
operating day period.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator of each Unit must maintain
the following records until the earlier of December 22, 2044 or the
date that conventional coal-fired operation of all units at NGS
permanently ceases:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results as required
by Part 75 and as necessary to calculate each units pounds of
NOX and heat input for each hour.
    (ii) Each Boiler Operating Day rolling average emission rate for
NOX calculated in accordance with paragraph (j)(6)(i) of
this section.
    (iii) Each unit's 30 Boiler Operating Day pounds of NOX
and heat input.
    (iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any
records required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (v) Records of the relative accuracy calculation of the
NOX lb/hr measurement and hourly heat input.
    (vi) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (8) Reporting. All reports and notifications under this paragraph
(j) must be submitted to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection
Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, and to the Director
of Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, at 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
    (i) The owner/operator must notify EPA within two weeks after
completion of installation of NOX control technology on any
of the units subject to this section.
    (ii) Within 30 days after the first applicable compliance date in
paragraph (j)(3) of this section and within 30 days of every second
calendar quarter thereafter (i.e., semi-annually), the owner/operator
must submit a report that lists for each calendar day, calculated in
accordance with paragraph (j)(6) of this section, total lb of
NOX and heat input (as used to calculate compliance per
paragraph (j)(6) of this section, for each unit's last 30 boiler
operating days. The owner/operator must include the results of the last
relative accuracy test audit and the calculated relative accuracy for
lb/hr NOX and heat input performed 45 days prior to the end
of that reporting period. The end of the year report shall also include
the percent valid data for each NOX, diluent, and flow
monitor used in the calculations of compliance with paragraph (j)(6) of
this section.
    (9) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the unit would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.
    (10) Equipment operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner/operator shall, to the
extent practicable,

maintain and operate the unit including associated air pollution
control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether
acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be
based on information available to the Regional Administrator, or their
designee, which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the
unit.
    (11) Affirmative defense. The affirmative defense provisions of
paragraphs (c)(2) and (i) of this section do not apply to this
paragraph (j).
[FR Doc. 2014-18228 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62117]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-496-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on August 19, 2016, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000,
Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization to
construct, and operate certain compression facilities located in Texas
(Lone Star Project), all as more fully described in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Lone Star Project includes the construction, and operation of
the following facilities in the state of Texas: (1) Construction of a
new 10,915 horsepower (hp) compressor station 3A to be located in San
Patricio County, Texas; and (2) construction of a new 10,500 hp
compressor station 11A to be located in Jackson County, Texas. The
proposed facilities will be located on Tennessee's 100 Line, between
Tennessee's existing Compressor Station 1 and Compressor Station 17, in
San Patricio and Jackson counties, Texas. Tennessee states that the
facilities will provide firm transportation service of up to 300,000
dekatherms per day to Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC. The estimated
cost of the project is $131.9 million.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to John
Griffin, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Ellen Eastham, Senior Regulatory Analyst II, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas
77002, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2016.

    Dated: September 1, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21566 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40712-40715]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17861]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0184; FRL-9966-80-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; AK: Adoption
Updates and Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on September 15, 2016.
These revisions primarily update adoptions of Federal regulations in
the Alaska SIP. The revisions also strengthen the State of Alaska's
(Alaska or State) minor source permitting requirements and remove
obsolete source-category specific regulations. In addition, EPA is
approving SIP revisions to Alaska's general and transportation
conformity regulations submitted by ADEC on March 10, 2016. The EPA is
taking action only on the conformity related portions of the March 2016
submittal. The other portions of the submittal are or will be addressed
in separate actions.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0184. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air and
Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. EPA requests that
you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below, to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit,
Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206)
553-1999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On March 10, 2016 and September 15, 2016, Alaska submitted SIP
revisions to EPA for approval. On June 13, 2017, the EPA proposed to
approve the conformity portions of Alaska's March 10, 2016 submittal
and all of the revisions requested in the September 15, 2016 submittal
(82 FR 27031). Please see our proposed rulemaking for further
explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period
for this proposal ended on July 13, 2017. We received two supportive
comments.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate
in Alaska's SIP, all revisions requested by Alaska on September 15,
2016 (state effective August 20, 2016) to the following provisions:

 18 AAC 50.010(4) (Ambient Air Quality Standards)
 18 AAC 50.020(a) (Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable
Increases)
 18 AAC 50.035(a)(3) and (a)(7) (Documents, Procedures, and
Methods Adopted by Reference)
 18 AAC 50.040(f) and (h) (Federal Standards Adopted by
Reference)
 18 AAC 50.215(a)(3) (Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods)
 18 AAC 50.345(o) (Construction, Minor and Operating Permits:
Standard Permit Conditions)
 18 AAC 50.502(c), (e), (f), (f)(1)(C), (f)(5), (g), (h)(3)(A),
and (h)(3)(B) (Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection)
 18 AAC 50.540 (c)(2)(A) (Minor Permit: Application)
 18 AAC 50.542(b)(5) and (d)(1) (Minor Permit: Review and
Issuance)

    At Alaska's request, EPA is also removing from the SIP the
following provisions that ADEC repealed as a matter of state law: 18
AAC 50.055(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(7), (a)(8), (b)(4), (b)(6), (f)
(Industrial Process and Fuel-Burning Equipment) and 18 AAC 50.060 (Pulp
Mills).
    Finally, EPA is approving revisions to 18 AAC 50, Article 7,
Transportation

Conformity, submitted by Alaska on March 10, 2016; specifically, the
revisions to transportation conformity provisions in 18 AAC 50.715 and
50.720, and the removal of the general conformity provisions in 50.735.
    We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent
with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above
in Section II. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40
CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 10 office (please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has
demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 27, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: August 10, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising entries 18 AAC 50.010, 18 AAC 50.020, 18 AAC 50.035, 18 AAC
50.040, 18 AAC 50.055;
0
b. Removing entry 18 AAC 50.060;
0
c. Revising entries 18 AAC 50.215, 18 AAC 50.345, 18 AAC 50.502, 18 AAC
50.540, 18 AAC 50.542, 18 AAC 50.715, and 18 AAC 50.720; and
0
d. Removing entry 18 AAC 50.735.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.70   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Alaska Regulations and statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        State citation               Title/subject      effective date     EPA approval date      Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Control (18 AAC 50)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               18 AAC 50 Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.010.................  Ambient Air Quality            8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (8).
                                 Standards.                              Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.020.................  Baseline Dates and             8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         ................
                                 Maximum Allowable                       Federal Register
                                 Increases.                              citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.035.................  Documents, Procedures          8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (a)(6)
                                 and Methods Adopted                     Federal Register        and (b)(4).
                                 by Reference.                           citation].
18 AAC 50.040.................  Federal Standards       8/20/16; 11/9/  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (a), (b),
                                 Adopted by Reference.              14   Federal Register        (c), (d), (e),
                                                                         citation].              (g), (j), and
                                                                                (k).

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.055.................  Industrial Processes           8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except
                                 and Fuel-Burning                        Federal Register        (d)(2)(B).
                                 Equipment.                              citation].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                   18 AAC 50 Article 2. Program Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.215.................  Ambient Air Quality            8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (a)(4).
                                 Analysis Methods.                       Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                              18 AAC 50 Article 3. Major Stationary Source Permits

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.345.................  Construction, Minor            8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (b),
                                 and Operating                           Federal Register        (c)(3), and
                                 Permits: Standard                       citation].              (l).
                                 Permit Conditions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                       18 AAC 50 Article 5. Minor Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 AAC 50.502.................  Minor Permits for Air          8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         ................
                                 Quality Protection.                     Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.540.................  Minor Permit:                  8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         ................
                                 Application.                            Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
18 AAC 50.542.................  Minor Permit: Review           8/20/16  8/28/17 [Insert         Except (b)(2).
                                 and Issuance.                           Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                 18 AAC 50 Article 7. Transportation Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
18 AAC 50.715.................  Interagency                     3/2/16  8/28/17 [Insert         ................
                                 Consultation                            Federal Register
                                 Procedures.                             citation].
18 AAC 50.720.................  Public Involvement....          3/2/16  8/28/17...............  ................
                                                                        [Insert Federal
                                                                         Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17861 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P