83 FR 55994 - Revisions to the Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 218 (November 9, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 218 (November 9, 2018)
| Page Range | 55994-56002 | |
| FR Document | 2018-24482 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 55994-56002] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-24482] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 49 and 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0590; FRL-9986-21-Region 9] Revisions to the Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing limited revisions to the source-specific federal implementation plan (FIP) that regulates emissions from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal- fired power plant located on the reservation lands of the Navajo Nation near Page, Arizona. We are proposing to lower the emission limitation for particulate matter (PM) to conform to the most stringent emission limitation currently applicable to NGS under another EPA regulation, and to replace the opacity limitation and annual PM source testing requirement with a requirement to demonstrate compliance with the lower PM emission limitation using a continuous emission monitoring system for particulate matter. DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 10, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA- R09-OAR-2018-0590, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the EPA's full public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3958, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. Action B. Facility C. Attainment Status D. The EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions II. Basis for Proposed Action III. Summary of FIP Provisions A. Proposed FIP Revisions B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions IV. Solicitation of Comments V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. Action In this action, the EPA is proposing limited revisions to the FIP for NGS that we promulgated on October 3, 1991 (``1991 FIP''), March 5, 2010 (``2010 FIP''), and August 8, 2014 (``2014 FIP'').\1\ The provisions of the 1991 action are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.145(d), and the 2010 and 2014 regulations are codified at 40 CFR 49.5513. We refer collectively to the provisions from the 1991, 2010, and 2014 actions as the ``FIP'' or the ``NGS FIP.'' The NGS FIP includes federally enforceable emission limitations for PM, opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), 75 FR 10174 (March 5, 2010), and 79 FR 46552 (August 8, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Generally, the EPA is proposing to move provisions from the 1991 FIP to a different section of the CFR and to [[Page 55995]] update certain provisions in the 1991 FIP to be consistent with recent national rulemakings. Specifically, we are proposing to move the 1991 FIP provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513. If finalized, the effect of our action will be to move requirements for NGS from subpart D of part 52, which contains the state implementation plan (SIP) provisions for Arizona, to subpart L of part 49, which contains source-specific FIP requirements for NGS, to consolidate all of the applicable requirements for NGS in one section of the CFR. We are proposing to update the definition of ``boiler operating day'' in the 1991 FIP to be consistent with the definition in the 2014 FIP.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1) and 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(2)(iii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, we are proposing to revise the PM compliance demonstration from annual source testing to the use of PM continuous emissions monitoring systems (PM CEMS), which were installed and calibrated on each of the three units at the facility in 2016. We are also proposing to lower the PM emission limitation in the 2010 FIP from 0.060 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.030 lb/ MMBtu. This lower emission limitation already applies to NGS pursuant to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Rule.\3\ Because the operator of NGS will be using PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limitation for PM, the EPA is also proposing to remove the opacity emission limitation and associated continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) requirements from the NGS FIP. The opacity limitation and COMS have generally functioned as surrogates for ensuring compliance with PM emission limitations. This proposed revision is consistent with the provisions related to PM CEMS and opacity in the New Source Performance Standard for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (``NSPS for EGUs'') and the Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR 75.14(e), which generally provide that any owner or operator that elects to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a PM CEMS for demonstrating compliance with a sufficiently stringent PM emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/MMBtu or lower) need not meet the opacity limit and monitoring requirements.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See 77 FR 9303 (February 16, 2012) and 81 FR 20172 (April 6, 2016) (Final Technical Corrections). \4\ See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR part 75. Subpart Da to part 60 is the ``Standard of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units'' and applies to units that are capable of combusting more than 73 MW heat input of fossil fuel and for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after September 18, 1978. The units at NGS were constructed prior to 1978 and are not subject to part 60 subpart Da. The NGS units are subject to the Acid Rain Program requirements of CAA Title IV, but are eligible for an exemption from the requirement for COMS in CAA section 412(a), pursuant to 40 CFR 75.14. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, we are proposing to clarify requirements that have already been satisfied (e.g., a one-time requirement that has been met to submit a description of dust suppression methods to the Regional Administrator) and update the addresses to which the owner or operator must submit reports. B. Facility NGS is a coal-fired power plant located on the reservation lands of the Navajo Nation, just east of Page, Arizona, and approximately 135 miles north of Flagstaff. NGS is co-owned by several entities and operated by Salt River Project (SRP).\5\ The facility currently operates three units, each with a capacity of 750 megawatts (MW) net generation, providing a total capacity of 2250 MW. Operations at the facility produce air pollutant emissions, including emissions of SO2 , NOX , and PM. Existing pollution control equipment at NGS includes wet flue gas desulfurization units for SO2 and PM removal, electrostatic precipitators for PM removal, and low-NOX burners with separated over-fire air to reduce NOX formation during the combustion process. In the future, the owner or operator of NGS will be taking steps to reduce emissions of NOX further, pursuant to the requirements of the 2014 FIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Currently, the participants in NGS are the United States Bureau of Reclamation, SRP, Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Company, and NV Energy. SRP, which serves as the facility operator, recently increased its ownership share after it purchased the shares previously owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Attainment Status The area around NGS is designated attainment, unclassifiable/ attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants under the Act.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 40 CFR 81.303. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. The EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country When the CAA was amended in 1990, Congress included a new provision, section 301(d), granting the EPA authority to treat tribes in the same manner as states where appropriate.\7\ In 1998, the EPA promulgated regulations known as the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR).\8\ The EPA's promulgation of the TAR clarified, among other things, that state air quality regulations generally do not, under the CAA, apply to facilities located anywhere within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations.\9\ Prior to the addition of section 301(d) and the promulgation of the TAR, some states had mistakenly included emission limitations in their SIPs that they may have believed could apply under the CAA to private facilities operating on adjacent Indian reservations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See 40 U.S.C. 7601(d). \8\ See 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81. See also 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998). \9\ See 63 FR 7254 at 7258 (noting that unless a state has explicitly demonstrated its authority and has been expressly approved by the EPA to implement CAA programs in Indian country, the EPA is the appropriate entity to implement CAA programs prior to tribal primacy), Arizona Public Service Company v. EPA., 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom, Michigan v. EPA., 532 U.S. 970 (2001) (upholding the TAR); see also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 533 U.S. 520, 526 n.1 (1998) (primary jurisdiction over Indian country generally lies with federal government and tribes, not with states). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the preambles to the proposed and final 1998 TAR, the EPA generally discussed the legal basis in the CAA that authorizes the EPA to regulate sources of air pollution in Indian country.\10\ The EPA concluded that the CAA authorizes the EPA to protect air quality throughout Indian country.\11\ The TAR, therefore, provides that the EPA ``[s]hall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections [301](a) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted tribal implementation plan.'' \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994); 63 FR 7253 (February 12, 1998). \11\ See 63 FR 7253 at 7262 (February 12, 1998); 59 FR 43956 at 43960-43961 (August 25, 1994) (citing, among other things, to CAA sections 101(b)(1), 301(a), and 301(d)). \12\ See 63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)). In the preamble to the final TAR, the EPA explained that it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as states with respect to section 110(c) of the Act, which directs the EPA to promulgate a FIP within 2 years after the EPA finds a state has failed to submit a complete state plan or within 2 years after the EPA disapproval of a state plan. Although the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP within the 2-year period for tribes, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that the EPA will continue to be subject to the basic requirement to issue any necessary or appropriate FIP provisions for affected tribal areas within some reasonable time. See 63 FR at 7264-65. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions On December 2, 1980, EPA issued regulations addressing visibility [[Page 55996]] impairment that is traceable or ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources.\13\ These regulations required a number of states to submit SIPs no later than September 2, 1981. Most states, including Arizona, failed to submit SIPs as called for by the regulations. Accordingly, in 1987, the EPA issued visibility FIPs consisting of general plan requirements and long-term strategies for 29 states including Arizona.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980), codified at 40 CFR 51.300- 51.307. \14\ See 52 FR 45132 (November 24, 1987). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1989, based on a report submitted by the National Park Service, the EPA proposed to find that a portion of the visibility impairment in Grand Canyon National Park was reasonably attributable to NGS.\15\ Under the 1991 FIP, NGS was required to phase-in compliance with the SO2 emission limit, by installing scrubbers in 1997, 1998, and 1999.\16\ In establishing the SO2 emission limit for NGS in the final 1991 FIP, the EPA determined that the FIP would provide for greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), codified at 40 CFR 52.145. \16\ 40 CFR 52.145(d)(7). \17\ 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On September 8, 1999, the EPA proposed a source-specific FIP for NGS.\18\ The 1999 proposed FIP stated: ``Although the facility has been historically regulated by Arizona since its construction, the state lacks jurisdiction over the facility or its owners or operations for CAA compliance or enforcement purposes.'' The EPA intended for the proposed action in 1999 to ``federalize'' the emission limitations that Arizona had erroneously included in its SIP.\19\ The EPA received comments on the proposed FIP but did not finalize the proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999). \19\ 64 FR 48725 at 48727. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2006, the EPA published a new proposed rule to promulgate federally enforceable numerical emission limitations for PM and SO2 and took action to finalize it in 2010.\20\ The 2010 FIP also established an opacity limit and a requirement for specific control measures to limit dust emissions. In the 2010 FIP, the EPA determined that the emission limitations for PM and SO2 were more stringent than, or at least as stringent as, the emission limitations that had historically applied at NGS pursuant to an operating permit issued by Arizona. Therefore, the EPA concluded that air quality in this area would be positively impacted by the 2010 FIP.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ 75 FR 10179 (March 5, 2010) codified at 40 CFR 49.24(a) through (i) and redesignated to 40 CFR 49.5513(a) through (i). See 76 FR 23879 (April 29, 2011). \21\ 75 FR 10174 (March 5, 2010). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 8, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule that established limits for NOX emissions from NGS under BART provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.\22\ We finalized an alternative to BART based on agreed-upon recommendations developed by a group of diverse stakeholders. The 2014 FIP limits emissions of NOX from NGS by establishing a long-term facility-wide cap on total NOX emissions from 2009 to 2044 and requires the implementation of one of several alternative operating scenarios to ensure that the 2009 to 2044 cap is met. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ 79 FR 46514 (August 8, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Basis for Proposed Action In this proposed FIP revision, the EPA is exercising its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). The EPA is proposing that it is necessary or appropriate to revise the FIP for NGS to be more consistent with the MATS Rule and the NSPS for EGUs. In particular, we are proposing to require the use of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with a lower PM emission limitation and remove the opacity limitation and COMS monitoring requirement, which has served as a surrogate for a compliance demonstration for the PM emission limitation. As explained in the preamble to the 2010 FIP establishing the opacity limitation and COMS requirement, water droplets, which are present in the NGS stacks because of the SO2 scrubbers, can cause inaccurate excess emission readings from the COMS.\23\ Therefore, the PM CEMS would provide a better continuous demonstration of compliance with the PM emission limitation than an opacity limit and COMS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ``NGS will continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes . . . Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.'' 75 FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR 49.5113(f)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the reasons set forth above, we are proposing to find that limited revisions to the FIP for NGS are necessary or appropriate to further protect air quality on the Navajo Nation. III. Summary of FIP Provisions A. Proposed FIP Revisions The EPA is proposing the following limited revisions to the FIP for NGS at 40 CFR 52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513. We have included two documents in the docket for this proposed rulemaking that show the original text of 40 CFR 52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513 and the EPA's proposed revisions to those provisions.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See documents titled ``2018 NGS part 49 FIP RLSO.docx'' and ``2018 part 52 FIP RLSO.docx'' in the docket for this rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d) The EPA is proposing to move the 1991 FIP promulgated at 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513(k) to consolidate the NGS FIP requirements in a single section of the CFR. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 52.145(d) by changing internal citations referring to paragraph (d) to refer instead to paragraph (k). For clarity, in this action we continue to refer to the 1991 FIP as designated in 40 CFR 52.145(d). In addition, we are proposing to revise the definition of boiler operating day in paragraph 52.145(d)(1) to be consistent with its definition in the 2014 FIP. 2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b) Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to clarify that the applicable compliance date for this section is April 5, 2010, which was the original effective date for this section, unless otherwise specified within specific provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513. 3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d) In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are proposing to revise the emission limitation for PM from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/MMBtu, add a compliance date for this revised limit, and remove specifications related to PM testing. In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing to remove the compliance date for submitting to the EPA a dust suppression plan and to clarify the status of this plan, which the owner or operator submitted on June 4, 2010 and revised on February 2, 2015.\25\ The final revision we are proposing to 40 CFR 49.5513(d) is to remove the opacity limit and exclusions for water vapor in paragraph (4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Draft Statement Of Basis Navajo Generating Station Permit No. NN-OP-15-06 (September 2015), p. 15. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e) In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1), we are proposing to delete the requirement to [[Page 55997]] operate COMS. In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(2), we are proposing to replace the existing specifications related to annual PM testing with a requirement to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2) using PM CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU and add a compliance date for this requirement. Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(4), we are proposing to remove the provision related to COMS. Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(8), we are proposing to correct an outdated reference. 5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f) The EPA is proposing revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements to provide additional clarity that all reports and notifications required in 40 CFR 49.5513(f), (f)(2), and (f)(4), should be reported to the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) and the EPA. We are also revising 40 CFR 49.5513(f) to update addresses for reporting to the EPA. In addition, in 40 CFR 49.5513(f)(4), consistent with the proposed removal of the opacity emission limitation and COMS requirement in 40 CFR 49.5513(d) and (e), we are proposing to replace a requirement to submit excess opacity reports as recorded by COMS with a requirement to submit excess emission reports for PM as recorded by CEMS, and to remove additional provisions related to the COMS. 6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j) Under 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are proposing to remove addresses for the NNEPA and the EPA that are already provided in 40 CFR 49.5513(f) and to require that all reports and notifications under 40 CFR 49.5513(j) be submitted to the NNEPA and the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 49.5513(f). B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions 1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d) We are proposing to move the 1991 FIP from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513(k). The 1991 FIP was originally codified in 40 CFR part 52 subpart D, which contains the SIP provisions for the state of Arizona. The provisions at 52.145 relate to visibility protection and paragraph (d) pertains to the control of SO2 emissions from NGS based on the effects of those emissions on visibility at Grand Canyon National Park. Because the EPA has subsequently promulgated FIP requirements for NGS in 40 CFR part 49 subpart L, for regulatory clarity, we are proposing to move the SO2 requirements from the 1991 FIP to the same part of the CFR as the implementation plans in Indian country, including the FIP requirements for NGS promulgated in 2010 and 2014. This move will not relax any existing FIP requirements for NGS and will have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS. Throughout 40 CFR 52.145(d), the provisions include internal citations referring to specific subparagraphs in paragraph (d). Consistent with our proposal to move the provisions from the 1991 FIP to 40 CFR 49.5513(k), we are also proposing to revise the internal citations that currently refer to paragraph (d) (i.e., 40 CFR 52.145(d)) to refer instead to paragraph (k) (i.e., 40 CFR 49.5513(k)). This proposed revision will not relax any existing FIP requirements for NGS and will have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS. We are also proposing to revise a definition of boiler operating day in 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1). The term is currently defined as a 24-hour calendar day during which coal is combusted in that unit for the entire 24-hours. We are proposing to revise the definition to mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time, such that it is not necessary for fuel to be combusted the entire 24-hour period. This revised definition, if finalized, would be identical to the definition of boiler operating day promulgated in the 2014 FIP and would be consistent with the recent changes to the definition promulgated by the EPA elsewhere (e.g., the NSPS for EGUs). 2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b) Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to add a statement to the compliance dates specifying that compliance with the requirements of the section is required by April 5, 2010, which was the original effective date for this section, unless otherwise specified within specific provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513. Because the FIP provisions for NGS promulgated in 1991, 2010, and 2014 all have different compliance dates, we are proposing to revise this provision for regulatory clarity. The compliance date for the FIP provisions for NGS promulgated in 2010 would remain April 5, 2010, while the deadlines for the 1991 and 2014 FIPs would remain as specified in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.145(d)(6) and 49.5513(j) respectively. The compliance dates for the revised PM limit and PM CEMS requirements would be specified in paragraphs 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2) and (e)(2), as explained below. This proposed revision would not relax any existing FIP requirements for NGS and would have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS. 3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d) In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are proposing to revise the PM emission limitation from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/MMBtu for consistency with the numerical PM emission limitation in the MATS Rule. The current applicable emission limitation for PM in the 2010 FIP is higher than the PM emission limitation in the MATS Rule. Revising the PM emission limitation in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2) to 0.030 lb/MMBtu will make the PM emission limitation in the FIP conform to the applicable, more stringent emission limitation in the MATS Rule. The EPA anticipates this will not result in any substantive change in the applicable requirements or the method of PM control for this facility. We propose to require compliance with this limitation in the FIP by the effective date of the final FIP. In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are also proposing to delete the current provisions related to PM emissions testing. The requirements for demonstrating compliance with the PM emission limitation are instead addressed in 40 CFR 49.5513(e). In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing to clarify the requirement for submitting to the EPA a dust suppression plan. In 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to remove paragraph (d)(4), which contains provisions related to the opacity limit. In 2016, SRP installed and calibrated PM CEMS on each unit at NGS. We are proposing to remove the opacity limit from the NGS FIP because in 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(2), we are proposing to add a new requirement to operate the PM CEMS on each unit to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. This provision is consistent with the NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da(b)(1) and the Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR 75.14(e), which generally provide that any owner or operator that elects to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a PM CEMS for demonstrating compliance with a sufficiently stringent PM emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/MMBtu or lower) need not meet the opacity limit and monitoring requirements.\26\ The PM [[Page 55998]] CEMS is a monitoring system that provides a continuous assessment of compliance with a PM emission limitation. Generally, opacity limits and COMS have been used as a surrogate to ensure compliance with a PM emission standard that would otherwise be subject only to periodic source testing.\27\ NGS is not subject to the NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da. However, we are proposing to follow the same rationale from Subpart Da to remove the opacity limit and COMS requirement because we are concurrently proposing to revise the NGS FIP to require the installation, calibration, operation, and maintenance of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the lower proposed PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. As explained in the preamble to our 2010 FIP, water droplets, which are present in the NGS stacks because of the SO2 scrubbers, can cause inaccurate excess emission readings on the COMS.\28\ Because the PM CEMS provides a better continuous demonstration of compliance with the revised and more stringent PM emission limitation than an opacity limit and COMS, this proposed revision would not relax any existing requirements in the NGS FIP with respect to PM emissions and would not adversely affect air quality in the surrounding area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR part 70. Subpart Da to part 60 is the ``Standard of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units'' and applies to units that are capable of combusting more than 73 MW heat input of fossil fuel and for which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after September 18, 1978. The units at NGS were constructed prior to 1978 and are not subject to part 60 subpart Da. \27\ See, e.g., discussion of opacity in the 2007 FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant, 72 FR 25698 at 25701 (May 7, 2007), stating that opacity limits are generally applied to ensure a unit is meeting its PM limit. \28\ See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ``NGS will continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes . . . Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.'' 75 FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR 49.5113(f)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e) In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) and (e)(4), we are proposing changes to remove testing and monitoring requirements for opacity, consistent with our proposed removal of the opacity limit in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(4). Because we are proposing to remove the opacity limit, the requirements in 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) to operate COMS and in (e)(4) to maintain two sets of opacity filters for the COMS are no longer necessary. In paragraph (e)(2), we are proposing to replace the existing specifications related to annual PM testing with a requirement to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limit in accordance with the specifications in the MATS Rule by the effective date of the final FIP. The use of PM CEMS is a continuous measurement and is a better method for ensuring compliance with the revised and more stringent PM emission limit than annual source testing for the existing less stringent PM emission limit combined with an opacity limit and COMS. Therefore, these combined revisions would not relax existing requirements with respect to PM emissions or result in adverse effects on air quality in the surrounding area. Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(8), we are proposing to correct an outdated reference to ``Section 49.24(d)(3),'' which has been recodified as 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(3).\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 76 FR 23876 (April 29, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f) The EPA is proposing revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements to specify that all reports and notifications required in 40 CFR 49.5513 should be sent to the NNEPA and the Regional Administrator of the Region IX office of the EPA. Because 40 CFR 49.5513(f)(2) repeats addresses and other reporting details already provided in paragraph (f), we are also proposing to delete the redundant provisions in paragraph (f)(2). These proposed administrative changes would not relax any requirements or have any effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS. In addition, consistent with the proposed removal of the COMS requirement in paragraph (e), we are also proposing to remove the reporting requirements related to the COMS in paragraph (f)(4). The use of PM CEMS is a continuous measurement and is a better method for ensuring compliance with the revised and more stringent PM emission limit than annual source testing for the existing less stringent PM emission limit combined with an opacity limit and COMS. Therefore, these combined revisions would not relax existing requirements with respect to PM emissions or result in adverse effects on air quality in the surrounding area. 6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j) In 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are proposing to remove addresses for the NNEPA and the EPA that are already provided in 40 CFR 49.5513(f) and to require that all reports and notifications under paragraph (j) be submitted to the NNEPA and the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 49.5513(f). This proposed revision removes redundant information and requires reporting for 40 CFR 49.55153(j) to be consistent with the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 49.5513(f). Therefore, these proposed revisions would not adversely affect air quality in the surrounding area. These proposed changes to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(10) do not relax any requirements or have any effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS. IV. Solicitation of Comments As described above, the EPA is proposing the following revisions: (1) Move the 1991 FIP provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513; (2) revise a definition of boiler operating day; (3) clarify the compliance dates applicable to the FIP requirements; (4) lower the PM emission limitation in the 2010 FIP from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/ MMBtu; (5) revise the PM compliance demonstration from annual source testing to the use of PM CEMS; (6) and replace the existing opacity limit and COMS requirement with a new requirement to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu using PM CEMS. The EPA solicits comments on the limited provisions of the NGS FIP that we are proposing to revise in this rulemaking. We are not accepting comment on any provisions of the NGS FIP that we are not proposing to revise. Accordingly, please limit your comments to those specific provisions listed above that we are proposing to revise in today's action. V. Environmental Justice Considerations The Navajo Generating Station is located on the reservation lands of the Navajo Nation, and the EPA recognizes there is significant community interest in the emissions and environmental effects of this facility. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the proposed revisions to the NGS FIP would strengthen the FIP by requiring the use of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the lower PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. Because the proposed revisions strengthen the NGS FIP, the EPA considers this action to be beneficial for human health and the environment, and to have no potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. [[Page 55999]] VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866. C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule applies to only one facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a ``collection of information'' as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c). D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed four million megawatt-hours. Each of the owners of the facility affected by this rule, Salt River Project, the Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power, and NV Energy, exceed this threshold. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. F. 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 on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Although this proposed action affects a facility located in Indian country, the proposed limited revisions to existing provisions in the NGS FIP will not have substantial direct effects on any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, we note that we have engaged in numerous discussions with the NNEPA during the development of this proposed rule and continue to invite consultation on this proposed action. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This action involves technical standards. The technical standards in this action are based on the technical standards used in other rulemakings promulgated by the EPA. We refer to the discussion of the technical standards and voluntary consensus standards in the final rule for 40 CFR part 60 subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU at 77 FR 9304 at 9441 (February 16, 2012). K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. If this rule is finalized as proposed, we expect that the limited revisions to the FIP will strengthen requirements for PM compliance demonstrations with a lower PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, and will not relax any other existing requirements. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 49 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility. Dated: October 26, 2018. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 0 1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart L--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region IX 0 2. Section 49.5513 is amended by: 0 a. Revising paragraph (b); 0 b. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3); 0 c. Removing paragraph (d)(4); 0 d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); 0 e. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(4); 0 f. Revising paragraph (8); 0 g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(2) and (4); 0 h. Revising paragraphs (j)(8) introductory text; and 0 i. Adding paragraph (k). The revisions and additions read as follows: [[Page 56000]] Sec. 49.5513 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation. * * * * * (b) Compliance dates. Compliance with the requirements of this section is required no later than April 5, 2010, unless otherwise indicated by compliance dates contained in specific provisions. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Particulate matter. By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of particulate matter into the atmosphere in excess of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, on a plant-wide basis. (3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain the existing dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal handling and storage facilities, as documented in the dust suppression plan submitted on February 2, 2015, or any subsequent revision thereto. Each owner or operator shall not emit dust with an opacity greater than 20% from any crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, belt conveyor, truck loading or unloading operation, or railcar unloading station, as determined using 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4 Method 9. (e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of this regulation, the owner or operator shall maintain and operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOX and SO2 on Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. (2) By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate particulate matter CEMS on Units 1, 2, and 3 to assure continuous compliance with the particulate matter limits in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU. * * * * * (8) A certified EPA Reference Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 observer shall conduct a weekly visible emission observation for the equipment and activities described under paragraph (d)(3) of this section. If visible emissions are present at any of the equipment and/or activities, a 6-minute EPA Reference Method 9 observation shall be conducted. The name of the observer, date, and time of observation, results of the observations, and any corrective actions taken shall be noted in a log. (f) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All requests, reports, submittals, notifications and other communications to the EPA, Regional Administrator, or Administrator required by this section and references therein shall be submitted to the Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515, (928) 871-7692, (928) 871-7996 (facsimile); and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: ORA-1, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 947-8000. For each unit subject to the emissions limitations in this section the owner or operator shall: * * * * * (2) For excess emissions, notify the Regional Administrator by telephone or in writing within one business day. A complete written report of the incident shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator within ten (10) working days after the event. This notification shall include the following information: * * * * * (4) Submit quarterly excess emissions reports for sulfur dioxide and PM as recorded by CEMS together with a CEMS data assessment report to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days after each calendar quarter. The owner or operator shall complete the excess emissions reports according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d) and include the Cylinder Gas Audit. * * * * * (j) * * * (8) Reporting. All reports and notifications under this paragraph (j) must be submitted as required by paragraph (f) of this section to the Director, Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and to the Regional Administrator. * * * * * (k) This paragraph (k) is applicable to the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Navajo Generating Station in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 40 CFR 81.270). (1) Definitions--(i) Administrator means the Administrator of EPA or his/her designee. (ii) Affected unit(s) means the steam-generating unit(s) at the Navajo Generating Station, all of which are subject to the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, that has accumulated at least 365 boiler operating days since the passage of the date defined in paragraph (k)(6) of this section applicable to it. (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) Owner or operator means the owner, participant in, or operator of the Navajo Generating Station to which this paragraph (k) is applicable. (v) Unit-week of maintenance means a period of 7 days during which a fossil fuel-fired steam-generating unit is under repair, and no coal is combusted in the unit. (2) Emission limitation. The following emission limitation shall apply at all times. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere in excess of 42 nanograms per Joule (ng/J) [0.10 pound per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)] heat input. (3) Compliance determination. Until at least one unit qualifies as an affected unit, no compliance determination is appropriate. As each unit qualifies for treatment as an affected unit, it shall be included in the compliance determination. Compliance with this emission limit shall be determined daily on a plant-wide rolling annual basis as follows: (i) For each boiler operating day at each steam generating unit subject to the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the owner or operator shall record the unit's hourly SO2 emissions using the data from the continuous emission monitoring systems, required in paragraph (k)(4) of this section, and the daily electric energy generated by the unit (in megawatt-hours) as measured by the megawatt-hour meter for the unit. (ii) Compute the average daily SO2 emission rate in ng/J (lb/MMBtu) following the procedures set out in method 19, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60 in effect on October 3, 1991. (iii) For each boiler operating day for each affected unit, calculate the product of the daily SO2 emission rate (computed according to paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of this section) and the daily electric energy generated (recorded according to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section) for each unit. (iv) For each affected unit, identify the previous 365 boiler operating days to be used in the compliance determination. Except as provided in paragraphs (k)(9) and (k)(10) of this section, all of the immediately [[Page 56001]] preceding 365 boiler operating days will be used for compliance determinations. (v) Sum, for all affected units, the products of the daily SO2 emission rate-electric energy generated (as calculated according to paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of this section) for the boiler operating days identified in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this section. (vi) Sum, for all affected units, the daily electric energy generated (recorded according to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section) for the boiler operating days identified in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this section. (vii) Calculate the weighted plant-wide annual average SO2 emission rate by dividing the sum of the products determined according to paragraph (k)(3)(v) of this section by the sum of the electric energy generated determined according to paragraph (k)(3)(vi) of this section. (viii) The weighted plant-wide annual average SO2 emission rate shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section. (4) Continuous emission monitoring. The owner or operator shall install, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitoring systems to determine compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section as calculated in paragraph (k)(3) of this section. This equipment shall meet the specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 in effect on October 3, 1991. The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for continuous emission monitoring systems found in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 in effect on October 3, 1991. (5) Reporting requirements. For each steam generating unit subject to the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the owner or operator: (i) Shall furnish the Administrator written notification of the SO2 , oxygen, and carbon dioxide emissions according to the procedures found in 40 CFR 60.7 in effect on October 3, 1991; (ii) Shall furnish the Administrator written notification of the daily electric energy generated in megawatt-hours; (iii) Shall maintain records according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7 in effect on October 3, 1991; and (iv) Shall notify the Administrator by telephone or in writing within one business day of any outage of the control system needed for compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section and shall submit a follow-up written report within 30 days of the repairs stating how the repairs were accomplished and justifying the amount of time taken for the repairs. (6) Compliance dates. The requirements of this paragraph shall be applicable to one unit at the Navajo Generating Station beginning November 19, 1997, to two units beginning November 19, 1998, and to all units beginning on August 19, 1999. (7) Schedule of compliance. The owner or operator shall take the following actions by the dates specified, but the interim deadlines will be extended if the owner or operators can demonstrate to the Administrator that compliance with the deadlines in paragraph (k)(6) of this section will not be affected: (i) By June 1, 1992, award binding contracts to an architectural and engineering firm to design and procure the control system needed for compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section. (ii) By January 1, 1995, initiate on-site construction or installation of a control system for the first unit. (iii) By May 1, 1997, initiate start-up testing of the control system for the first unit. (iv) By May 1, 1998, initiate start-up testing of the control system for the second unit. (v) By February 1, 1999, initiate start-up testing of the control system for the third unit. (8) Reporting on compliance schedule. Within 30 days after the specified date for each deadline in the schedule of compliance in paragraph (k)(7) of this section, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing whether the deadline was met. If it was not met, the notice shall include an explanation why it was not met and the steps which shall be taken to ensure future deadlines will be met. (9) Exclusion for equipment failure during initial operation. (i) For each unit, in determining compliance for the first year that such unit is required to meet the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, periods during which one of the following conditions are met shall be excluded. (A) Equipment or systems do not meet designer's or manufacturer's performance expectations. (B) Field installation including engineering or construction precludes equipment or systems from performing as designed. (ii) The periods to be excluded shall be determined by the Administrator based on the periodic reports of compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section which shall identify the times proposed for exclusion and provide the reasons for the exclusion, including the reasons for the control system outage. The report also shall describe the actions taken to avoid the outage, to minimize its duration, and to reduce SO2 emissions at the plant to the extent practicable while the control system was not fully operational. Whenever the time to be excluded exceeds a cumulative total of 30 days for any control system for any affected unit, the owner or operators shall submit a report within 15 days addressing the history of and prognosis for the performance of the control system. (10) Exclusion for catastrophic failure. In addition to the exclusion of periods allowed in paragraph (d)(9) of this section, any periods of emissions from an affected unit for which the Administrator finds that the control equipment or system for such unit is out of service because of catastrophic failure of the control system which occurred for reasons beyond the control of the owner or operators and could not have been prevented by good engineering practices will be excluded from the compliance determination. Events which are the consequence of lack of appropriate maintenance or of intentional or negligent conduct or omissions of the owner or operators or the control system design, construction, or operating contractors do not constitute catastrophic failure. (11) Equipment operation. The owner or operator shall optimally operate all equipment or systems needed to comply with the requirements of this paragraph consistent with good engineering practices to keep emissions at or below the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, and following outages of any control equipment or systems the control equipment or system will be returned to full operation as expeditiously as practicable. (12) Maintenance scheduling. On March 16 of each year starting in 1993, the owner or operator shall prepare and submit to the Administrator a long-term maintenance plan for the Navajo Generating Station that accommodates the maintenance requirements for the other generating facilities on the Navajo Generating Station grid covering the period from March 16 to March 15 of the next year and showing at least 6 unit-weeks of maintenance for the Navajo Generating Station during the November 1 to March 15 period, except as provided in paragraph (k)(13) of this section. This plan shall be developed consistent with the criteria established by the Western States Coordinating Council of the North American Electric Reliability Council to ensure an adequate reserve margin of electric [[Page 56002]] generating capacity. At the time that a plan is transmitted to the Administrator, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in writing if less than the full scheduled unit-weeks of maintenance were conducted for the period covered by the previous plan and shall furnish a written report stating how that year qualified for one of the exceptions identified in paragraph (k)(13) of this section. (13) Exceptions for maintenance scheduling. The owner or operator shall conduct a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance in accordance with the plan required in paragraph (k)(12) of this section unless the owner or operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during the November 1 to March 15 period should not be required because one of the conditions in paragraph (k)(13)(i) through (iv) of this section are met. If the Administrator determines that a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during the November 1 to March 15 period should not be required, the owner or operator shall nevertheless conduct that amount of scheduled maintenance that is not precluded by the Administrator. Generally, the owner or operator shall make best efforts to conduct as much scheduled maintenance as practicable during the November 1 to March 15 period. (i) There is no need for 6 unit-weeks of scheduled periodic maintenance in the year covered by the plan; (ii) The reserve margin on any electrical system served by the Navajo Generating Station would fall to an inadequate level, as defined by the criteria referred to in paragraph (k)(12) of this section; (iii) The cost of compliance with this requirement would be excessive. The cost of compliance would be excessive when the economic savings to the owner or operator of moving maintenance out of the November 1 to March 15 period exceeds $50,000 per unit-day of maintenance moved; and (iv) A major forced outage at a unit occurs outside of the November 1 to March 15 period, and necessary periodic maintenance occurs during the period of forced outage. PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 3. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart D--Arizona Sec. 52.145 [Amended] 0 4. Section 52.145 amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d). [FR Doc. 2018-24482 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![55994 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(c) Proof of recruitment. An employer § 655.225 Post-acceptance requirements or other information whose disclosure is
must retain documentation in for herding and range livestock. restricted by statute. Multimedia
accordance with § 655.167(c)(1)(ii) that * * * * * submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
demonstrates compliance with (d) The employer will not be required accompanied by a written comment.
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. to place an advertisement as required in The written comment is considered the
Such documentation must include § 655.151. official comment and should include
screen shots of the web page on which * * * * * discussion of all points you wish to
the advertisement appears and screen make. The EPA will generally not
shots of the web pages establishing the Molly E. Conway, consider comments or comment
path that U.S. workers must follow to Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment contents located outside of the primary
access the advertisement. and Training, Labor. submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
(d) Transition period for applications [FR Doc. 2018–24497 Filed 11–8–18; 8:45 am] other file sharing system). For
with dates of need prior to October 1, BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P additional submission methods, please
2019. (1) All employers submitting an contact the person identified in the FOR
Application for Temporary Employment FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Certification with a date of need on or ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION For the EPA’s full public comment
after October 1, 2019 must place and AGENCY policy, information about CBI or
retain documentation of an electronic multimedia submissions, and general
advertisement in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 49 and 52 guidance on making effective
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this comments, please visit http://
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0590; FRL–9986–21–
section. www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-
Region 9]
epa-dockets.
(2) An employer submitting an
Revisions to the Source-Specific FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Application for Temporary Employment
Certification with a date of need prior to Federal Implementation Plan for Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
October 1, 2019 may elect to place two Navajo Generating Station, Navajo 3958, lee.anita@epa.gov.
newspaper advertisements in Nation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
compliance with the requirements in Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
AGENCY: Environmental Protection and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this Agency (EPA).
section, in lieu of placing and retaining Table of Contents
ACTION: Proposed rule.
documentation of the electronic
I. Background
advertisement required by paragraphs SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection A. Action
(a) through (c) of this section. Agency (EPA) is proposing limited B. Facility
(i) The employer must place an revisions to the source-specific federal C. Attainment Status
advertisement (in a language other than implementation plan (FIP) that regulates D. The EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a
English, where the CO determines emissions from the Navajo Generating FIP in Indian Country
appropriate) on 2 separate days, which E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions
Station (NGS), a coal-fired power plant II. Basis for Proposed Action
may be consecutive, one of which must located on the reservation lands of the III. Summary of FIP Provisions
be a Sunday (except as provided in Navajo Nation near Page, Arizona. We A. Proposed FIP Revisions
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section), in a are proposing to lower the emission B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions
newspaper of general circulation serving limitation for particulate matter (PM) to IV. Solicitation of Comments
the area of intended employment and is conform to the most stringent emission V. Environmental Justice Considerations
appropriate to the occupation and the limitation currently applicable to NGS VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
workers likely to apply for the job under another EPA regulation, and to I. Background
opportunity. Newspaper advertisements replace the opacity limitation and
must satisfy the requirements set forth annual PM source testing requirement A. Action
in § 655.152. with a requirement to demonstrate In this action, the EPA is proposing
(ii) If the job opportunity is located in compliance with the lower PM emission limited revisions to the FIP for NGS that
a rural area that does not have a limitation using a continuous emission we promulgated on October 3, 1991
newspaper with a Sunday edition, the monitoring system for particulate (‘‘1991 FIP’’), March 5, 2010 (‘‘2010
CO may direct the employer, in place of matter. FIP’’), and August 8, 2014 (‘‘2014
a Sunday edition, to advertise in the FIP’’).1 The provisions of the 1991
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
regularly published daily edition with action are codified in the Code of
must arrive by December 10, 2018.
the widest circulation in the area of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 52.145(d), and the 2010 and 2014
intended employment.
identified by Docket ID number EPA– regulations are codified at 40 CFR
■ 3. Amend § 655.167 by revising
R09–OAR–2018–0590, at http:// 49.5513. We refer collectively to the
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
www.regulations.gov, or via email to provisions from the 1991, 2010, and
§ 655.167 Document retention lee.anita@epa.gov. For comments 2014 actions as the ‘‘FIP’’ or the ‘‘NGS
requirements. submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the FIP.’’ The NGS FIP includes federally
* * * * * online instructions for submitting enforceable emission limitations for PM,
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
(c) * * * comments. Once submitted, comments opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
cannot be edited or removed from oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
(1) * * *
Regulations.gov. For either manner of Generally, the EPA is proposing to
(ii) Advertising as specified in submission, the EPA may publish any
§ 655.151; move provisions from the 1991 FIP to a
comment received to its public docket. different section of the CFR and to
* * * * * Do not submit electronically any
■ 4. Amend § 655.225 by revising information you consider to be 1 See 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), 75 FR 10174
paragraph (d) to read as follows: Confidential Business Information (CBI) (March 5, 2010), and 79 FR 46552 (August 8, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Nov 08, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56212/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 55995
update certain provisions in the 1991 Finally, we are proposing to clarify (TAR).8 The EPA’s promulgation of the
FIP to be consistent with recent national requirements that have already been TAR clarified, among other things, that
rulemakings. Specifically, we are satisfied (e.g., a one-time requirement state air quality regulations generally do
proposing to move the 1991 FIP that has been met to submit a not, under the CAA, apply to facilities
provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 description of dust suppression located anywhere within the exterior
CFR 49.5513. If finalized, the effect of methods to the Regional Administrator) boundaries of Indian reservations.9 Prior
our action will be to move requirements and update the addresses to which the to the addition of section 301(d) and the
for NGS from subpart D of part 52, owner or operator must submit reports. promulgation of the TAR, some states
which contains the state had mistakenly included emission
implementation plan (SIP) provisions B. Facility limitations in their SIPs that they may
for Arizona, to subpart L of part 49, NGS is a coal-fired power plant have believed could apply under the
which contains source-specific FIP located on the reservation lands of the CAA to private facilities operating on
requirements for NGS, to consolidate all Navajo Nation, just east of Page, adjacent Indian reservations.
of the applicable requirements for NGS Arizona, and approximately 135 miles In the preambles to the proposed and
in one section of the CFR. We are north of Flagstaff. NGS is co-owned by final 1998 TAR, the EPA generally
proposing to update the definition of several entities and operated by Salt discussed the legal basis in the CAA
‘‘boiler operating day’’ in the 1991 FIP River Project (SRP).5 The facility that authorizes the EPA to regulate
to be consistent with the definition in currently operates three units, each with sources of air pollution in Indian
the 2014 FIP.2 a capacity of 750 megawatts (MW) net country.10 The EPA concluded that the
In addition, we are proposing to generation, providing a total capacity of CAA authorizes the EPA to protect air
revise the PM compliance 2250 MW. Operations at the facility quality throughout Indian country.11
demonstration from annual source produce air pollutant emissions, The TAR, therefore, provides that the
testing to the use of PM continuous including emissions of SO2, NOX, and EPA ‘‘[s]hall promulgate without
emissions monitoring systems (PM PM. Existing pollution control unreasonable delay such federal
CEMS), which were installed and equipment at NGS includes wet flue gas implementation plan provisions as are
calibrated on each of the three units at desulfurization units for SO2 and PM necessary or appropriate to protect air
the facility in 2016. We are also removal, electrostatic precipitators for quality, consistent with the provisions
proposing to lower the PM emission PM removal, and low-NOX burners with of sections [301](a) and 301(d)(4), if a
limitation in the 2010 FIP from 0.060 separated over-fire air to reduce NOX tribe does not submit a tribal
pounds per million British thermal formation during the combustion implementation plan meeting the
units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.030 lb/MMBtu. process. In the future, the owner or completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
This lower emission limitation already operator of NGS will be taking steps to Appendix V, or does not receive EPA
applies to NGS pursuant to the EPA’s reduce emissions of NOX further, approval of a submitted tribal
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard pursuant to the requirements of the implementation plan.’’ 12
(MATS) Rule.3 Because the operator of 2014 FIP. E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP
NGS will be using PM CEMS to
C. Attainment Status Actions
demonstrate compliance with the 0.030
lb/MMBtu emission limitation for PM, The area around NGS is designated On December 2, 1980, EPA issued
the EPA is also proposing to remove the attainment, unclassifiable/attainment or regulations addressing visibility
opacity emission limitation and unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants 8 See 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81. See also
associated continuous opacity under the Act.6 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998).
monitoring system (COMS) 9 See 63 FR 7254 at 7258 (noting that unless a
requirements from the NGS FIP. The D. The EPA’s Authority To Promulgate
state has explicitly demonstrated its authority and
opacity limitation and COMS have a FIP in Indian Country has been expressly approved by the EPA to
generally functioned as surrogates for implement CAA programs in Indian country, the
When the CAA was amended in 1990, EPA is the appropriate entity to implement CAA
ensuring compliance with PM emission Congress included a new provision, programs prior to tribal primacy), Arizona Public
limitations. This proposed revision is section 301(d), granting the EPA Service Company v. EPA., 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir.
consistent with the provisions related to authority to treat tribes in the same 2000), cert. denied sub nom, Michigan v. EPA., 532
PM CEMS and opacity in the New U.S. 970 (2001) (upholding the TAR); see also
manner as states where appropriate.7 In Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal
Source Performance Standard for 1998, the EPA promulgated regulations Government, 533 U.S. 520, 526 n.1 (1998) (primary
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units known as the Tribal Authority Rule jurisdiction over Indian country generally lies with
(‘‘NSPS for EGUs’’) and the Acid Rain federal government and tribes, not with states).
10 See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994); 63 FR 7253
Program requirements at 40 CFR Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating (February 12, 1998).
75.14(e), which generally provide that Units’’ and applies to units that are capable of 11 See 63 FR 7253 at 7262 (February 12, 1998); 59
any owner or operator that elects to combusting more than 73 MW heat input of fossil
FR 43956 at 43960–43961 (August 25, 1994) (citing,
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate fuel and for which construction, modification, or
among other things, to CAA sections 101(b)(1),
reconstruction commenced after September 18,
a PM CEMS for demonstrating 1978. The units at NGS were constructed prior to
301(a), and 301(d)).
12 See 63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)).
compliance with a sufficiently stringent 1978 and are not subject to part 60 subpart Da. The
In the preamble to the final TAR, the EPA explained
PM emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/ NGS units are subject to the Acid Rain Program
that it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same
MMBtu or lower) need not meet the requirements of CAA Title IV, but are eligible for
manner as states with respect to section 110(c) of
an exemption from the requirement for COMS in
opacity limit and monitoring the Act, which directs the EPA to promulgate a FIP
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
CAA section 412(a), pursuant to 40 CFR 75.14.
requirements.4 5 Currently, the participants in NGS are the
within 2 years after the EPA finds a state has failed
to submit a complete state plan or within 2 years
United States Bureau of Reclamation, SRP, Arizona after the EPA disapproval of a state plan. Although
2 See 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1) and 40 CFR Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Company, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP within
49.5513(j)(2)(iii). and NV Energy. SRP, which serves as the facility the 2-year period for tribes, the EPA promulgated
3 See 77 FR 9303 (February 16, 2012) and 81 FR operator, recently increased its ownership share 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that the EPA will
20172 (April 6, 2016) (Final Technical Corrections). after it purchased the shares previously owned by continue to be subject to the basic requirement to
4 See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. issue any necessary or appropriate FIP provisions
6 See 40 CFR 81.303.
Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR part 75. for affected tribal areas within some reasonable
Subpart Da to part 60 is the ‘‘Standard of 7 See 40 U.S.C. 7601(d). time. See 63 FR at 7264–65.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Nov 08, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56212/page/2.svg)
![56000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 49.5513 Federal Implementation Plan observer, date, and time of observation, operating days since the passage of the
Provisions for Navajo Generating Station, results of the observations, and any date defined in paragraph (k)(6) of this
Navajo Nation. corrective actions taken shall be noted section applicable to it.
* * * * * in a log. (iii) Boiler operating day means a 24-
(b) Compliance dates. Compliance (f) Reporting and recordkeeping hour period between 12 midnight and
with the requirements of this section is requirements. All requests, reports, the following midnight during which
required no later than April 5, 2010, submittals, notifications and other any fuel is combusted at any time in the
unless otherwise indicated by communications to the EPA, Regional steam-generating unit. It is not
compliance dates contained in specific Administrator, or Administrator necessary for fuel to be combusted the
provisions. required by this section and references entire 24-hour period.
* * * * * therein shall be submitted to the (iv) Owner or operator means the
(d) * * * Director, Navajo Environmental owner, participant in, or operator of the
(2) Particulate matter. By [DATE 30 Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Navajo Generating Station to which this
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION Window Rock, Arizona 86515, (928) paragraph (k) is applicable.
OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 871–7692, (928) 871–7996 (facsimile); (v) Unit-week of maintenance means a
REGISTER], no owner or operator shall and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. period of 7 days during which a fossil
discharge or cause the discharge of Environmental Protection Agency, fuel-fired steam-generating unit is under
particulate matter into the atmosphere Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: repair, and no coal is combusted in the
in excess of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, on a plant- ORA–1, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San unit.
wide basis. Francisco, California 94105, (415) 947– (2) Emission limitation. The following
(3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall 8000. For each unit subject to the emission limitation shall apply at all
operate and maintain the existing dust emissions limitations in this section the times. No owner or operator shall
suppression methods for controlling owner or operator shall: discharge or cause the discharge of
dust from the coal handling and storage * * * * * sulfur oxides into the atmosphere in
facilities, as documented in the dust (2) For excess emissions, notify the excess of 42 nanograms per Joule (ng/J)
suppression plan submitted on February Regional Administrator by telephone or [0.10 pound per million British thermal
2, 2015, or any subsequent revision in writing within one business day. A units (lb/MMBtu)] heat input.
thereto. Each owner or operator shall complete written report of the incident (3) Compliance determination. Until
not emit dust with an opacity greater shall be submitted to the Regional at least one unit qualifies as an affected
than 20% from any crusher, grinding Administrator within ten (10) working unit, no compliance determination is
mill, screening operation, belt conveyor, days after the event. This notification appropriate. As each unit qualifies for
truck loading or unloading operation, or shall include the following information: treatment as an affected unit, it shall be
railcar unloading station, as determined * * * * * included in the compliance
using 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4 (4) Submit quarterly excess emissions determination. Compliance with this
Method 9. reports for sulfur dioxide and PM as emission limit shall be determined daily
(e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and recorded by CEMS together with a on a plant-wide rolling annual basis as
after the effective date of this regulation, CEMS data assessment report to the follows:
the owner or operator shall maintain Regional Administrator no later than 30 (i) For each boiler operating day at
and operate Continuous Emissions days after each calendar quarter. The each steam generating unit subject to the
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOX owner or operator shall complete the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2)
and SO2 on Units 1, 2, and 3 in excess emissions reports according to of this section, the owner or operator
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d) shall record the unit’s hourly SO2
60.13(e), (f), and (h), and Appendix B of and include the Cylinder Gas Audit. emissions using the data from the
Part 60. The owner or operator shall * * * * * continuous emission monitoring
comply with the quality assurance (j) * * * systems, required in paragraph (k)(4) of
procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR (8) Reporting. All reports and this section, and the daily electric
part 75. notifications under this paragraph (j) energy generated by the unit (in
(2) By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE must be submitted as required by megawatt-hours) as measured by the
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN paragraph (f) of this section to the megawatt-hour meter for the unit.
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner Director, Navajo Nation Environmental (ii) Compute the average daily SO2
or operator shall install, calibrate, Protection Agency and to the Regional emission rate in ng/J (lb/MMBtu)
maintain, and operate particulate matter Administrator. following the procedures set out in
CEMS on Units 1, 2, and 3 to assure * * * * * method 19, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60
continuous compliance with the (k) This paragraph (k) is applicable to in effect on October 3, 1991.
particulate matter limits in paragraph the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating (iii) For each boiler operating day for
(d)(2) of this section, in accordance with equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and each affected unit, calculate the product
40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU. 3 at the Navajo Generating Station in the of the daily SO2 emission rate
* * * * * Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality (computed according to paragraph
(8) A certified EPA Reference Method Control Region 40 CFR 81.270). (k)(3)(ii) of this section) and the daily
9 of Appendix A–4 of 40 CFR part 60 (1) Definitions—(i) Administrator electric energy generated (recorded
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
observer shall conduct a weekly visible means the Administrator of EPA or his/ according to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this
emission observation for the equipment her designee. section) for each unit.
and activities described under (ii) Affected unit(s) means the steam- (iv) For each affected unit, identify
paragraph (d)(3) of this section. If visible generating unit(s) at the Navajo the previous 365 boiler operating days
emissions are present at any of the Generating Station, all of which are to be used in the compliance
equipment and/or activities, a 6-minute subject to the emission limitation in determination. Except as provided in
EPA Reference Method 9 observation paragraph (k)(2) of this section, that has paragraphs (k)(9) and (k)(10) of this
shall be conducted. The name of the accumulated at least 365 boiler section, all of the immediately
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Nov 08, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56212/page/7.svg)
![56002 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
generating capacity. At the time that a Subpart D—Arizona County nonattainment area by the
plan is transmitted to the Administrator, applicable attainment date and that the
the owner or operator shall notify the § 52.145 [Amended] nonattainment plan meets the other
Administrator in writing if less than the ■ 4. Section 52.145 amended by applicable requirements under CAA.
full scheduled unit-weeks of removing and reserving paragraph (d). DATES: Comments must be received on
maintenance were conducted for the [FR Doc. 2018–24482 Filed 11–8–18; 8:45 am] or before December 10, 2018.
period covered by the previous plan and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
shall furnish a written report stating identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
how that year qualified for one of the OAR–2017–0625 at http://
exceptions identified in paragraph ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
(k)(13) of this section. AGENCY instructions for submitting comments.
(13) Exceptions for maintenance Once submitted, comments cannot be
40 CFR Part 52
scheduling. The owner or operator shall edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
conduct a full 6 unit-weeks of [EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0625; FRL–9986–36– EPA may publish any comment received
maintenance in accordance with the Region 4] to its public docket. Do not submit
plan required in paragraph (k)(12) of electronically any information you
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; consider to be Confidential Business
this section unless the owner or Attainment Plan for Jefferson County
operator can demonstrate to the Information (CBI) or other information
SO2 Nonattainment Area whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
satisfaction of the Administrator that a
full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during AGENCY: Environmental Protection Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
the November 1 to March 15 period Agency (EPA). etc.) must be accompanied by a written
should not be required because one of ACTION: Proposed rule. comment. The written comment is
the conditions in paragraph (k)(13)(i) considered the official comment and
through (iv) of this section are met. If SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection should include discussion of all points
the Administrator determines that a full Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve you wish to make. EPA will generally
6 unit-weeks of maintenance during the the State Implementation Plan (SIP) not consider comments or comment
November 1 to March 15 period should revision, submitted under a cover letter contents located outside of the primary
not be required, the owner or operator dated June 23, 2017, by the submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
shall nevertheless conduct that amount Commonwealth of Kentucky, through other file sharing system). For
of scheduled maintenance that is not the Kentucky Division for Air Quality additional submission methods, the full
precluded by the Administrator. (KDAQ) on behalf of the Louisville EPA public comment policy,
Generally, the owner or operator shall Metro Air Pollution Control District information about CBI or multimedia
make best efforts to conduct as much (District or Jefferson County) to EPA, for submissions, and general guidance on
scheduled maintenance as practicable attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) making effective comments, please visit
during the November 1 to March 15 primary national ambient air quality http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
standard (NAAQS) for the Jefferson commenting-epa-dockets.
period.
County SO2 nonattainment area FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(i) There is no need for 6 unit-weeks (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Jefferson Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
of scheduled periodic maintenance in County nonattainment area,’’ Management Section, Air Planning and
the year covered by the plan; ‘‘nonattainment Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
(ii) The reserve margin on any Jefferson County nonattainment area is and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
electrical system served by the Navajo comprised of a portion of Jefferson Environmental Protection Agency,
Generating Station would fall to an County in Kentucky surrounding the Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
inadequate level, as defined by the Louisville Gas and Electric Mill Creek Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Wong can be
criteria referred to in paragraph (k)(12) Electric Generating Station (hereafter reached via telephone at (404) 562–8726
of this section; referred to as ‘‘Mill Creek’’ or ‘‘LG&E’’). or via electronic mail at wong.richard@
This plan (hereafter called a epa.gov.
(iii) The cost of compliance with this
‘‘nonattainment plan’’ or ‘‘SIP’’ or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
requirement would be excessive. The
‘‘attainment SIP’’) includes Kentucky’s
cost of compliance would be excessive Table of Contents
attainment demonstration and other
when the economic savings to the
elements required under the Clean Air I. Requirement for Kentucky to Submit an
owner or operator of moving
Act (CAA or Act). In addition to an SO2 Attainment Plan for the Jefferson
maintenance out of the November 1 to County Area
attainment demonstration, the plan
March 15 period exceeds $50,000 per II. Requirements for SO2 Attainment Plans
addresses the requirement for meeting
unit-day of maintenance moved; and III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer
reasonable further progress (RFP)
(iv) A major forced outage at a unit Term Averaging
toward attainment of the NAAQS, IV. Review of Attainment Plan Requirements
occurs outside of the November 1 to reasonably available control measures A. Emission Inventory
March 15 period, and necessary and reasonably available control B. Attainment Modeling Demonstration
periodic maintenance occurs during the technology (RACM/RACT), base-year 1. Model Selection
period of forced outage. and projection-year emissions 2. Meteorological Data
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
inventories, enforceable emission limits, 3. Emissions Data
PART 52—APPROVAL AND nonattainment new source review 4. Emission Limits
PROMULGATION OF (NNSR) and contingency measures. EPA i. Enforceability
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ii. Longer Term Average Limits
proposes to conclude that Kentucky has 5. Background Concentration
appropriately demonstrated that the 6. Summary of Modeling Results
■ 3. The authority citation for part 52 nonattainment plan provisions provide C. RACM/RACT
continues to read as follows: for attainment of the 2010 1-hour D. New Source Review (NSR)
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. primary SO2 NAAQS in the Jefferson E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:11 Nov 08, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_56212/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-09 03:34:27
Document Modified: 2018-11-09 03:34:27
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 10, 2018. | |
| Contact | Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3958, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 55994 | |
| CFR Citation | 40
CFR
49 40 CFR 52 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Indians; Intergovernmental Relations; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Visibility |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR