[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24112]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0489; FRL-9901-58-Region 9]
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best
Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant; Navajo
Nation; Extension of Notification Deadline
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On August 24, 2012, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to implement the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirement of the Regional Haze Rule for the Four Corners Power Plant
(FCPP), which is located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation.
Included in the FIP was a requirement that by July 1, 2013, Arizona
Public Service (APS), co-owner and operator of FCPP must notify EPA of
its selected BART compliance strategy. On June 19, 2013, APS requested
that EPA extend the notification date from July 1 to December 31, 2013,
due to new uncertainties related to the potential deregulation of the
retail electricity market in Arizona that complicate its decision for
selecting a BART compliance option. In response to this request, on
July 11, 2013, EPA proposed to extend the notification date, from July
1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. EPA did not receive any comments during
the 30-day public comment period for the proposed action. EPA received
one comment that was emailed to EPA on August 13, 2013, one day after
the close of the comment period. We are providing a response to the
late comment, however the information in the late comment did not
change the basis or justification for our proposal to extend the
notification date. Therefore, EPA is taking final action to extend the
notification date in the FIP from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 1, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action at EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0489. Generally, documents in the docket are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at EPA Region 9 (e.g., maps, voluminous reports,
copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-
3958, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
II. Summary of EPA Action and Response to Late Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
FCPP is a privately owned and operated coal-fired power plant
located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation near Farmington, New
Mexico. Based on lease agreements signed in 1960, FCPP was constructed
and has been operating on real property held in trust by the Federal
government for the Navajo Nation. The facility consists of five coal-
fired electric utility steam generating units with a total capacity of
2,060 megawatts (MW). Units 1, 2, and 3 at FCPP are owned entirely by
APS, which serves as the facility operator, and are rated to 170 MW
(Units 1 and 2) and 220 MW (Unit 3). Units 4 and 5 are each rated to a
capacity of 750 MW, and are co-owned by six entities: Southern
California Edison (48 percent), APS (15 percent), Public Service
Company of New Mexico (13 percent), Salt River Project (10 percent), El
Paso Electric Company (7 percent), and Tucson Electric Power (7
On August 24, 2012, EPA promulgated a FIP that established limits
for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from FCPP under
the BART provision of the Regional Haze Rule (77 FR 51620). The final
FIP required the owners of FCPP to implement one of two strategies for
BART compliance: (1) Compliance with a facility-wide BART emission
limit for NOX of 0.11 pounds per million British Thermal
Units of heat input (lb/MMBtu) by October 23, 2017, or (2) retirement
of Units 1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014, and compliance with a BART
for NOX of 0.098 lb/MMBtu on Units 4 and 5 by July 1, 2018.
The second BART compliance strategy, involving retirement of Units 1,
2, and 3, was based on a broader plan put forth by APS that also called
for APS to purchase Southern California Edison's 48 percent ownership
interest in Units 4 and 5 at FCPP. This compliance strategy was
proposed and finalized in the FIP as an alternative emission control
strategy that achieved greater reasonable progress than BART. For
additional information regarding EPA's analyses regarding BART and the
alternative emission control strategy, see EPA's BART proposal (75 FR
64221, October 29, 2010), supplemental proposal (76 FR 10530, February
25, 2011) and final rule (77 FR 51620, August 24, 2012).
As discussed in our supplemental proposal published on February 25,
2011, APS' choice to retire Units 1, 2, and 3, and comply with BART
emission limits on Units 4 and 5 was contingent on the resolution of
several issues. These issues included a renewed site lease with the
Navajo Nation, a renewed coal contract, and regulatory approvals from
the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for
APS to purchase the 48 percent interest of Units 4 and 5 currently
owned by Southern California Edison (SCE). Because the regulatory
approvals, renewed site lease, and renewed coal contract were expected
to require significant time and effort by APS, other owners, and the
Navajo Nation, EPA's final FIP included requirements for APS to (1)
update EPA by January 1, 2013, on the status of lease negotiations and
regulatory approvals, and (2) notify EPA, by July 1, 2013, of the BART
strategy APS would elect to implement, including a plan and schedule
for compliance with its chosen strategy.\1\
\1\ See 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4).
On December 31, 2012, APS provided an update to EPA regarding the
status of the approvals required for implementing the alternative
emission control strategy.\2\ APS stated that on March 7, 2011, APS and
the Navajo Nation executed an agreement to extend the lease for FCPP to
July 6, 2041. The lease renewal must be reviewed and approved by the
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, which triggers review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other related reviews, including
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. NEPA review is underway
and is expected to conclude in time to allow for a Record of Decision
by January 2015. EPA is a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. In
its December 31, 2012 update letter, APS also stated that it is in
ongoing negotiation for a new coal supply agreement with its coal
supplier. Finally, APS confirmed that it had obtained regulatory
approvals to purchase SCE's 48 percent interest of Units 4 and 5.\3\
\2\ See Letter from Susan Kidd, Director Environmental Policies
and Programs, Arizona Public Service, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated December 31, 2012.
\3\ APS received approval from the ACC on April 24, 2012; from
FERC on November 27, 2012; and from the Department of Justice/
Federal Trade Commission on July 2, 2012. As discussed in our final
rulemaking dated August 24, 2012, EPA already understood that the
CPUC approved the sale of SCE's shares of Units 4 and 5 at FCPP to
APS on March 22, 2012.
However, in a letter dated June 19, 2013, APS requested that EPA
extend the date by which APS must provide notification of its BART
implementation strategy for FCPP.\4\ APS explained that it had
previously expected to meet the July 1, 2013 notification date because
it had completed the processes to obtain regulatory approvals to
purchase SCE's shares of Units 4 and 5, and renewal of the lease and
coal contract were underway. Then, unexpectedly, in May 2013, the ACC
voted to re-examine deregulation of the retail electric market in
Arizona.\5\ In its June 19, 2013 letter, APS explains that, depending
on its structure and reach, a deregulated retail electric market could
significantly change the BART compliance strategy for FCPP. Thus, APS
stated that it would no longer be able to make an informed decision
regarding the BART option by July 1, 2013. APS stated that its decision
concerning a selected compliance strategy requires more certainty
regarding the likelihood of deregulation in Arizona. APS also filed a
Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
disclosing the uncertainty caused by the ACC decision to examine
\4\ See letter from Ann Becker, Vice President, Environmental
and Chief Sustainability Officer, Arizona Public Service, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated June 19,
\6\ Form 8-K was appended to the June 19, 2013 letter from Ann
Becker to Jared Blumenfeld.
APS has requested that EPA extend the notification date for its
selection of the BART compliance strategy to December 31, 2013. APS
noted that the potential for deregulation of the retail electric market
in Arizona was not foreseen at the time of our final rulemaking in
2012. APS also noted that extending the notification date by six months
will not affect public health or the environment because the BART
compliance dates, in 2017 or 2018, depending on the compliance strategy
selected, are not linked to the notification date and remain unchanged.
On July 11, 2013, EPA proposed to revise the notification date
provision in the existing source-specific federal implementation plan
for FCPP, codified at 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4), to extend the date by which
the owner or operator of FCPP must notify EPA of its selected BART
compliance strategy from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (78 FR
41731). EPA's proposal included a proposed determination that an
extended notification date was necessary to provide APS with the needed
flexibility in determining whether to implement BART or the alternative
emission control strategy to reduce FCPP's NOX emissions by
80-87 percent. Additionally the proposed extension would not interfere
with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other requirement
of the CAA because the proposed notification date extension does not
change the compliance dates associated with BART or the alternative
emission control strategy. The public comment period for the proposed
action closed on August 12, 2013. EPA did not receive any comments on
the proposed action during the public comment period. On August 13,
2013, a comment letter dated August 12, 2013, was sent to EPA via
electronic mail. Although our proposal stated that comments ``must be
postmarked no later than August 12, 2013,'' EPA is responding to the
late comment in this final rulemaking. Because the comment does not
change our basis or justification for our proposal to extend the
notification date, EPA is finalizing our proposed action.
II. Summary of EPA Action and Response to Late Comment
EPA is taking final action to extend the date by which the owner or
operator of FCPP must notify EPA of its selected BART compliance
strategy, from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. This final action
revises one provision in the existing source-specific FIP for FCPP,
codified at 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(4). The notification date was not a
substantive requirement of our BART determination, nor was it a
requirement related to the emission limit constituting BART or the
timeframe for BART compliance, as defined in the CAA or the Regional
Haze Rule. EPA notes that the FIP continues to require FCPP to meet the
emission limits required under BART or the alternative
emission control strategy by the compliance dates specified in our
final rulemaking, codified at 40 CFR 49.5512(i)(2) and (3), regardless
of the extension of the notification date in (i)(4).
On August 13, 2013, EPA received one late comment via electronic
mail on our proposed notification date extension. The comment was
submitted by the Law Office of John M. Barth on behalf of the San Juan
Citizens Alliance (SJCA). SJCA provided four reasons for contending
that the request for an extension of the notification date was ``not
First, SJCA contends that APS's request for an extension is not
reasonable because APS ``knew or should have known'' the ACC might
consider deregulation in the future, but failed to identify it as a
factor that could influence its choice between BART and the alternative
to BART. It appears that SJCA is arguing that APS cannot base its
request for a notification date extension on the potential for
deregulation because APS should have foreseen, but did not identify,
deregulation as an important factor in its decision. EPA disagrees. In
our final action in August 2012 that, among other things, established
the notification date, EPA had determined that APS had adequately
justified its requested notification date of July 1, 2013 based on when
it anticipated receiving approvals, from the ACC, the California Public
Utilities Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions, to
purchase SCE's share of Units 4 and 5 at FCPP, a key prerequisite for
implementing the Alternative to BART. SJCA submitted comments on the
proposed action and did not raise the ACC's potential consideration of
deregulation as a basis for not finalizing the July 1, 2013
notification date. SJCA has not provided any reason that APS may not
raise the ACC's consideration of deregulation now as a justification
for the notification date extension. The mere fact that deregulation
may have arisen in the future, but was not identified as a potential
issue, does not stop APS from relying on this event as a reasonable
basis to request an extension of the notification date now. In any
event, SJCA has not provided any explanation for how it or the public
will be harmed if EPA extends the notification date. APS is still
required to comply with BART or the alternative emission control
strategy by the dates in our August 2012 final rule.
Second, SJCA asserts that APS's request for the extension, by
letter dated June 19, 2013, was untimely because the ACC discussed
potential deregulation on May 9, 2013 and advised APS of this action on
May 23, 2013. SJCA does not provide any explanation about how this
brief delay in requesting an extension of the compliance date makes
APS's request unreasonable. As noted above, APS has not requested, and
EPA has not proposed, to extend the actual compliance dates for BART or
the Alternative to BART. SJCA has not claimed that extension of the
notification date to December 31, 2013, results in any harm to its
members or the public. In any event, the brief time that elapsed before
APS submitted a request to EPA for an extension of the notification
date was not unreasonable.
Third, SJCA argues that the ACC is only conducting an information
gathering proceeding concerning deregulation and such a proceeding is
not adequate to justify extending the notification date. Again, EPA
disagrees with the commenter. APS requested a modest extension of the
notification date based on the current uncertainty regarding the ACC's
consideration of deregulation and the potential for a deregulated
electric market to influence APS's decisions related to FCPP. None of
the information SJCA submitted is sufficient to allow EPA to determine
that the ACC's proceeding to receive and consider comments on
deregulation is not a reasonable justification for extending the
notification date. SJCA has not provided any facts showing that the
potential for deregulation would not affect APS's decisions related to
FCPP or that it or any other member of the public is harmed by the
notification date extension. As noted above, EPA is not extending the
dates on which APS must demonstrate FCPP is in compliance with the BART
emissions limit or the alternative emission control strategy.
Finally, SJCA states that it is unreasonable to extend the
notification date to December 31, 2013 and that October 31, 2013 should
be sufficient. EPA disagrees. SJCA has not demonstrated that a six-
month extension for APS to provide notification is not reasonable. In
fact, Exhibit 2 to the SJCA comment letter highlights the uncertainty
of the timing of the ACC's examination of deregulation. Exhibit 2 shows
that, as of July 1, 2013, the ACC's timeline for examining deregulation
was ``tentative,'' and the understanding of Commissioner Robert L.
Burns was ``that the goal is to address the issue at a September or
October Open Meeting.'' \7\ Thus, Exhibit 2 does not provide enough
certainty in the timing of ACC's review and consideration of comments
on deregulation to indicate that a notification date of October 31,
2013 would be sufficient or more reasonable than December 31, 2013.
SJCA has also failed to provide any reason that it or any other member
of the public will be harmed from the extension of the notification
date. APS is required to continue to comply with the dates it will come
into compliance with BART or the alternative.
\7\ Exhibit 2 to the SJCA Comment Letter was a letter dated July
1, 2013 from Robert L. Burns, Arizona Corporation Commission, to
President Ben Shelly and Speaker Johnny Naize, Navajo Nation, in
response to a letter from President Shelly and Speaker Naize, dated
June 24, 2013, expressing concern related to the decision of the ACC
to reexamine deregulation in Arizona.
In summary, the four points raised by SJCA in its late comment do
not provide sufficient information for EPA to change its proposal to
extend APS's BART notification date from July 1, 2013 to December 31,
2013. EPA is finalizing its proposal, and APS is required to notify EPA
on December 31, 2013, whether FCPP will install and operate emissions
controls to meet the BART limitation for Units 1-5 in 2017, or
implement the alternative emissions control strategy by closing Units
1, 2 and 3 in January 2014 and installing controls to meet a
NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu on Units 4 and 5 in
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563
This action extends the date for a single source to notify EPA
regarding its decision to implement BART or an alternative emission
control strategy. This type of action for a single source is exempt
from review under Executive Orders (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the action merely extends
a notification date, it does not impose an information collection
burden and the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment
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
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on
small entities, I certify that this final action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The owners of FCPP are not small entities, and the extended
notification date was requested by the operator and co-owner of FCPP.
See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This rule merely extends a notification date in an existing federal
implementation plan for FCPP by six months. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action extends a notification
date by six months. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications
because FCPP is located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation.
However, the rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing the BART regulations that were finalized on August 24, 2012,
for FCPP to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. During the comment period for prior EPA actions related to
the EPA's BART FIP for FCPP, the Navajo Nation raised concerns to EPA
about the potential economic impacts of our BART determination on the
Navajo Nation. EPA consulted the Navajo Nation regarding those
concerns. Additional details of our consultation with the Navajo Nation
are provided in sections III.H and IV.F of our final rulemaking
published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51620). EPA notified the Navajo
Nation Environmental Protection Agency regarding the request from APS
to extend the notification date on June 25, 2013. EPA did not receive a
request from the Navajo Nation to consult on this six-month extension
of the notification date for FCPP.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This action addresses a
notification date required for regional haze and visibility protection.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This final rule does not change any applicable emission
limit for FCPP nor does it extend the compliance deadline under BART or
the Alternative to BART. This final rule merely extends the date, by
six months, by which the operator of FCPP must notify EPA of its
elected compliance strategy.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's final action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability and only applies
to one facility, the Four Corner Power Plant.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Dioxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 24, 2013.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 49.5512 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as
Sec. 49.5512 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Four Corners
Power Plant, Navajo Nation.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) By January 1, 2013, the owner or operator shall submit a letter
to the Regional Administrator updating EPA of the status of lease
negotiations and regulatory approvals required to comply with paragraph
(i)(3) of this section. By December 31, 2013, the owner or operator
shall notify the Regional Administrator by letter whether it will
comply with paragraph (i)(2) of this section or whether it will comply
with paragraph (i)(3) of this section and shall submit a plan and time
table for compliance with either paragraph (i)(2) or (3) of this
section. The owner or operator shall amend and submit this amended plan
to the Regional Administrator as changes occur.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-24112 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P