The EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe, signed the following reconsideration and proposed rule on 3/15/13, and EPA is submitting it 

for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the rule, it is not the 

official version of the rule for purposes of public comment. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will 

appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0148. Once the official version of this document is published in the FR, this 

version will be removed from the Internet and replaced with a link to the official version. 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0148; FRL-] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Nevada; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan; 

Reconsideration of BART Compliance Date for Reid Gardner 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Notice of Reconsideration of Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting reconsideration of the compliance date 

for the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) emission 

limits for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at the Reid Gardner 

Generating Station (RGGS) promulgated in a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) on August 23, 2012. EPA is also 

proposing to extend the compliance date for the NOX emission 

limits applicable to Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS by 18 months from 

January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. We seek comment only on the 

aspects of the FIP specifically identified in this notice. We 

are not opening for reconsideration any other provisions of our 

FIP for RGGS or our partial approval of the Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 2 of 25

DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than [insert date 60 

days from date of publication in Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2013-0148, by one of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

(2) E-mail: r9_airplanning@epa.gov. 

(3) Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105-3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 3 of 25

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Hearings: EPA intends to hold one or more public hearings to 

accept oral and written comments on the proposed rulemaking. EPA 

will provide notice and additional details related to the 

hearings in the Federal Register, on our website, and in the 

docket. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov and 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 listed in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 

972-3958, r9_airplanning@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we”, “us”, 

and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

 A. Summary of Relevant EPA Actions 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 4 of 25

B. Petition for Reconsideration 

C. Supplemental Information 

II. EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Justification for Proposing to Extend Compliance Date 

B. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with 

Attainment or Reasonable Further Progress 

C. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with Any 

Other Applicable Requirement of the CAA 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 13563 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 5 of 25

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

A. Summary of Relevant EPA Actions

 On December 13, 2011, EPA signed a final rule approving all 

aspects of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP except for the state’s 

BART determination for reducing NOX emissions at RGGS.1

 Due to 

delays associated with publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register, the rule was not published until March 26, 

2012.2

 However, an unofficial copy of the final rule was provided 

to all interested parties soon after signature. 

On March 22, 2012, the state of Nevada indicated by letter 

that it intended to submit a SIP revision to EPA in September 

2012, including provisions to reduce the emission limit for Unit 

3 at RGGS from 0.28 pounds of NOX per million British thermal 

units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.20 lb/MMBtu and to require installation of 

controls on or before June 30, 2016.3

 

                                                           

1

 The Regional Haze Rule (RHR), BART, and the Nevada Regional 

Haze SIP are described elsewhere in greater detail. See, for 

example, EPA’s proposed approval of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP 

on June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36450). 

2

 77 FR 17334.

3

 See letter dated March 22, 2012 from Michael Elges, Deputy 

Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, to Deborah Jordan, Director of the Air Division at 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 6 of 25

On April 12, 2012, EPA proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the remaining portion of the Nevada 

Regional Haze SIP, i.e., Nevada’s BART determination for 

reducing NOX emissions at RGGS.4 EPA proposed approval of the NOX

emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2. Because the 

state’s intended SIP revision to reduce the emission limit for 

Unit 3 had not yet been submitted to EPA, we proposed, among 

other things, disapproval of the NOX emission limit of 0.28 

lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. EPA concurrently proposed a FIP, generally 

consistent with the state’s intentions, including an emission 

limit for Unit 3 of 0.20 lb/MMBtu. EPA’s proposed FIP included a 

provision requiring compliance with the BART emission limits 

within five years from promulgation of the final rule. EPA held 

two public hearings on May 3, 2012 to take comment on our 

proposed FIP. The comment period closed on June 4, 2012. 

On August 23, 2012, EPA promulgated our final rule to 

approve in part, disapprove in part, and implement a FIP for the 

disapproved portions of the Nevada BART determination for RGGS.5

The preamble to the final rule discusses in more detail our 

final action and the comments we received during the comment 

period for our proposal. Based on comments from EarthJustice, 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

EPA Region 9, re: Proposed Amendment to Nevada’s 2009 Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan. 

4

 77 FR 21896.

5

 77 FR 50936. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 7 of 25

representing a consortium of eight non-governmental 

organizations, that a 5-year compliance timeframe to meet the NOX

emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu was excessive,6 EPA reevaluated 

the compliance date for our final rulemaking. Notwithstanding an 

inaccurate statement in section I of the preamble to our final 

rule,7 EPA noted in section II.K of the preamble that our March 

26, 2012 approval of the portions of the Nevada Regional Haze 

SIP included the portion of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC 

445B.22096(2)(a)) requiring compliance with BART emission limits 

on three power plants, including RGGS, “[o]n or before January 

1, 2015; or (2) [n]ot later than 5 years after approval of 

Nevada’s state implementation plan for regional haze by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 

whichever comes first.”8

 Therefore, consistent with the 

compliance dates in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP that EPA 

                                                           

6

 See letter dated June 4, 2012 from Suma Peesapati, 

EarthJustice, to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, re: Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Nevada; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (Docket ID No. 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130).

7

 In section I of the preamble to the final rule, EPA incorrectly 

stated that we did not take action on the schedules for 

compliance for RGGS in our March 26, 2012 final rulemaking. See 

77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012).

8

 EPA’s final rulemaking on March 26, 2012 approved portions of 

the NAC, including “445B.22096, excluding the NOx emission limits 

and control types in sub-paragraph (1)(c).” See Table 1 in 40 

CFR 52.1470(c). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 8 of 25

approved on March 26, 2012, EPA finalized a compliance date in 

the FIP of January 1, 2015.9 

B. Petition for Reconsideration 

 On October 19, 2012, Nevada Energy (NV Energy, also known 

as Nevada Power Company) filed a petition to the Administrator 

for reconsideration of our August 23, 2012, final rule pursuant 

to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.10 The petition addresses one 

issue and requests that EPA reconsider the compliance date of 

January 1, 2015, for meeting the final NOX emission limits of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu on Units 1, 2 and 3 at RGGS. NV Energy asserts 

that (1) EPA erroneously adopted a January 1, 2015, deadline for 

Reid Gardner Generating Station, (2) EPA’s decision to set the 

January 1, 2015, compliance date without having proposed it 

deprived NV Energy of the ability to comment on a shorter 

compliance period, and (3) EPA’s adoption of the January 1, 

2015, compliance date was arbitrary and capricious because EPA 

                                                           

9

 On October 11, 2012, the Nevada State Environmental Commission 

adopted a revised regulation from the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection that, among other things, extended the 

compliance date for achieving BART emission limits for NOX at 

RGGS from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. See information 

available at http://www.sec.nv.gov/main/hearing_1012.htm 

10 See letter dated October 19, 2012 from Samuel Boxerman, Sidley 

Austin LLP representing Nevada Energy, to Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, US EPA, re: Petition for Reconsideration of EPA’s 

Final Rule entitled, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans; BART Determination for Reid Gardner 

Generating Station.”
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 9 of 25

failed to consider the impact of administrative delays in 

issuing the final rule before setting the compliance deadline. 

C. Supplemental Information 

 In a letter dated January 31, 2013, NV Energy submitted 

supplemental information to EPA describing the steps necessary 

to comply with the BART emission limits for NOX on Units 1, 2 and 

3 at RGGS, including required regulatory approvals, design, 

procurement, construction, commissioning, and testing of the new 

air pollution controls that NV Energy would need to install to 

comply with BART.11 Based on the amount of time required for the 

necessary steps, NV Energy states that the January 1, 2015 

deadline originally included in the Nevada Regional Haze SIP, 

and finalized in EPA’s FIP for RGGS, is not achievable, but 

demonstrates that the affected units at RGGS could meet the BART 

emission limits for NOX by June 30, 2016, based on an expeditious 

and compressed schedule for compliance. 

II. EPA’s Proposed Action 

In today’s action, EPA is granting reconsideration of the 

compliance date in our FIP for achieving the NOX emission limits 

at RGGS and proposing to extend the compliance date by 18 months 

                                                           

11 See letter dated January 31, 2013 from Starla Lacy, Executive, 

Environmental, Health, and Safety at NV Energy to Anita Lee, US 

EPA Region 9, re: Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan, Compliance Deadline for Units 1, 2, & 3 at Reid Gardner 

Generating Station. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 10 of 25

from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. EPA is granting 

reconsideration of the compliance date based on one of the 

arguments provided by NV Energy in the October 19, 2012, 

petition for reconsideration. Specifically, EPA agrees that NV 

Energy may not have had an adequate opportunity to comment on 

the final compliance date for the NOX emission limits because we 

had proposed a 5-year period for compliance. Therefore, EPA is 

granting the petition for reconsideration from NV Energy. 

EPA is proposing to extend the compliance date based on our 

review of the supplemental information NV Energy provided to EPA 

by letter dated January 31, 2013. The information NV Energy 

submitted justifies our proposed finding that compliance by 

January 2015 is not achievable, and we are proposing to extend 

the compliance date for meeting the NOX emission limits on Units 

1, 2 and 3 at RGGS to June 30, 2016. 

A. Justification for Proposing to Extend Compliance Date 

In its letter dated January 31, 2013, NV Energy sets forth 

its plans to install multiple control technologies to meet 

emission limits for NOX established as BART. NV Energy will 

install new advanced low-NOX burners coupled with over fire air 

(LNB/OFA), new selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems, 

and a new neural network control system, as well as modify the 

existing burner management system and combustion control system 

(BMS/CCS). NV Energy has contracted with Sargent and Lundy 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 11 of 25

(S&L), an engineering firm, to develop and manage the 

installation of this BART air pollution control project to 

reduce emissions of NOX at RGGS. 

This project, as documented in a Gantt chart created by S&L 

and submitted to EPA by NV Energy, requires detailed 

engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, tuning, 

and testing of the new control technologies, as well as 

regulatory approvals from the Nevada Public Utilities Commission 

and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 

NV Energy states that, if all necessary activities were 

conducted in sequence, final installation and operation of the 

new air pollution controls would require 77 months (over six 

years); however, NV Energy and S&L have developed a compressed 

42-month (three and one-half year) schedule set forth in the 

Gantt chart in order to complete the project by June 30, 2016. 

In its letter, NV Energy states that as of December 31, 2012, it 

has invested $1.9 million on the project for engineering and 

design, and intends to initiate engineering and procurement of 

the LNB/OFA in early 2013. 

The LNB/OFA combustion controls reduce the amount of NOX

formed during combustion by controlling the airflow and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 12 of 25

temperature during combustion.12 As such, the design of LNB/OFA 

must occur before the design of the SNCR, a post-combustion 

control that requires detailed fluid dynamic modeling of 

combustion to ensure that the placement of nozzles to inject the 

ammonia or urea occurs at the most appropriate locations (where 

the flue gas is within a prescribed temperature range) to 

optimize emission reductions of NOX.13 

NV Energy further states that modifications to the existing 

BMS/CCS first require a completed design for the LNB/OFA, and 

the specifications for the neural network require knowledge of 

what modifications will be made to the existing BMS/CCS. This 

information means that, although some tasks can be conducted 

simultaneously, many tasks are dependent on the completion of 

other tasks and must be staged sequentially. 

The information provided by NV Energy shows that the 

design, procurement, and fabrication of the multiple air 

pollution controls are scheduled to occur from 2013 through 

2015. Construction of controls on Units 1, 2 and 3 is scheduled 

to be staged over 2015 and 2016, including three to six months 

of pre-outage construction for each unit, two-month outages for 

                                                           

12 See, for example, EPA’s Technical Bulletin on NOX formation 

and control, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf. 

13 Id.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 13 of 25

each unit, four-month periods for tuning, and one-month periods 

for testing for each of the three units. 

In total, NV Energy expects to complete the installation of 

all air pollution controls to meet the BART limits in 42 months, 

an average of 14 months per unit. The Institute of Clean Air 

Companies estimates that the installation of SNCR typically 

requires 10 to 13 months, and typical deployment of LNB requires 

six to eight months.14 The combination of LNB and SNCR may then 

be expected to require 16 to 21 months. Based on the schedule 

provided by NV Energy and the anticipated timeframe requiring an 

average of 14 months per unit for the design, procurement, 

construction, commissioning, and testing of LNB/OFA, SNCR, a 

neural network, and modifications to the BMS/CCS, EPA considers 

the 42-month schedule for RGGS to comply with the BART limits 

for NOX to be as expeditious as practicable, and a deadline of 

January 1, 2015 to be not practically achievable.15 Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to extend the compliance timeframe for 

compliance with the NOX limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at RGGS by 18 

months, from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. 

                                                           

14 Institute of Clean Air Companies, Typical Installation 

Timelines for NOx Emissions Control technologies on Industrial 

Sources, December 4, 2006. 

15 Pursuant to CAA sections 169A(b)(2)(A and (g)(4), sources must 

procure, install, and operate BART as expeditiously as 

practicable, but in no event later than five years after the 

date of approval of a SIP or promulgation of a FIP.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 14 of 25

C. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with Attainment 

or Reasonable Further Progress 

 The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation 

plan shall not be approved by the Administrator “if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other 

applicable requirement of [the CAA].”16

EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven 

pollutants, including NO2, a component of NOX, and pollutants 

such as ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than 

or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), that are formed in the 

atmosphere from reactions between NOX and other pollutants.17

Using a process that considers air quality data and other 

factors, EPA designates areas as “nonattainment” if those areas 

cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable further 

progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to 

attainment and means “such annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant . . . for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS].” 

                                                           

16 See section 110(l) of the CAA.

17 The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, 

lead, and PM10. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 15 of 25

RGGS is located in Clark County, Nevada. Portions of Clark 

County (the Las Vegas Valley) have previously been designated 

nonattainment for PM10, carbon monoxide, and the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Clark County is now in attainment with the NAAQS 

for carbon monoxide and ozone.18 RGGS is not located in the 

nonattainment areas for PM10. The plans developed by Clark 

County, in part to satisfy a requirement for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment, and approved by EPA, do not rely on 

additional emission reductions of NOX at RGGS to ensure continued 

attainment with the carbon monoxide or the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. Therefore, an 18-month extension, from January 1, 

2015, to June 30, 2016, in the compliance date for RGGS to meet 

the BART limit for NOX will not interfere with attainment or 

reasonable further progress for any air quality standard. 

D. Compliance Date Extension Does Not Interfere with Any Other 

Applicable Requirement of the CAA 

 The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to 

RGGS are the visibility protection requirements for class I 

                                                           

18 See: “Determination of Attainment for PM10 for the Las Vegas 

Valley Nonattainment Area, NV,” 75 FR 45485 (August 3, 2012); 

“Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 

Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for the 

Carbon Monoxide Standard,” 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010); and 

“Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 

Nevada; Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Standard,” 78 FR 1149 (January 8, 2013). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 16 of 25

Federal areas under section 169A, i.e., BART and a long-term 

strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal of restoring visibility at class I Federal areas 

to natural conditions.19

 The CAA requires that the procurement, installation, and 

operation of BART be as expeditious as practicable but in no 

event later than five years after the date of approval of a SIP 

or promulgation of a FIP.20 Based on the information described in 

section II.B of this notice, EPA is proposing to determine that 

a date of June 30, 2016, to comply with the NOX limits previously 

determined as BART for RGGS is as expeditious as practicable and 

within five years of the effective date of EPA’s FIP for RGGS.21

Therefore, the 18-month extension we are proposing today will 

not interfere with the BART compliance requirement of the CAA. 

 Nevada’s Regional Haze SIP included a long-term strategy 

for making reasonable progress toward restoring visibility at 

the Jarbidge Wilderness Area to natural conditions by 2064. The 

CAA defines long-term as 10 to 15 years and Nevada’s long-term 

strategy, submitted to EPA in 2009, includes emission reductions 

                                                           

19 CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and (B).

20 CAA sections 169A(b)(2)(A) and (g)(4). 

21 The effective date of the final FIP is September 24, 2012. See 

77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012). Five years after the effective 

date is September 24, 2017.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 17 of 25

and visibility improvements that are expected by 2018.22 Because 

the proposed compliance date of June 30, 2016, occurs within the 

period of the first long-term strategy, i.e., prior to 2018, the 

18-month extension we are proposing will not interfere with the 

long-term strategy requirement of the CAA. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 13563 

This action proposes to extend the compliance date for a 

single source. This type of action 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 proposed action merely extends a compliance date, it 

does not impose an information collection burden and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

                                                           

22 See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B) and Section 7 of the Nevada 

Regional Haze SIP. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 18 of 25

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 

rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities, I certify that this proposed action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The owner of the affected units at 

Reid Gardner Generating Station, Nevada Energy, also known as 

Nevada Power Company, is not a small entity and the extended 

compliance date being proposed today reduces the burden on this 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 19 of 25

entity in general. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. 

FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on 

small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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 proposed 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 proposes an 18-month 

extension of a compliance date. Thus, this rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 20 of 25

This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes an 18-month extension of a 

compliance date. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 

this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and 

local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, 

and that is not required by statute, unless the federal 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 21 of 25

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 proposed rule may have tribal 

implications because the Reid Gardner Generating Station is 

located adjacent to reservation lands of the the Moapa Band of 

Paiute Indians. However, it 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 regulations related to Reid Gardner Generating 

Station to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into 

its development. During the comment period for prior EPA actions 

related to the Nevada Regional Haze SIP and EPA’s FIP for RGGS, 

the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians has raised concerns to EPA 

about the environmental impacts of this facility. For those 

previous rulemakings, EPA consulted the Moapa Band regarding 

these concerns and visited the reservation and the facility. 

Additional details of our consultation with the Moapa Band are 

provided in section IV.F of our final rulemaking published on 

August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50936). For this proposed action to 

extend the compliance date for NOX at RGGS by 18 months, we will 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 22 of 25

continue to consult with the Moapa Band as we proceed with this 

action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

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 proposed action addresses 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), Pub L. No. 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 23 of 25

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to 

OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed 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 proposed rule, if finalized, 

will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 24 of 25

because it does not affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. This proposed rule does not 

change any applicable emission limit for the Reid Gardner 

Generating Station. This proposed rule merely extends the 

compliance date for a single pollutant by 18 months. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen 

Dioxide. 

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

March 15, 2013 /s/ 

Dated: Bob Perciasepe, 

 Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 52, chapter I, 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52 – [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, on 03/15/2013. We have taken steps 

to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 25 of 25

2. Part 52 is amended by revising §52.1488 Visibility 

protection, subparagraph (f)(3) Compliance date, to read as 

follows: 

§52.1488 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this 

section shall comply with the emission limitations and other 

requirements of this section by June 30, 2016, and thereafter. 

* * * * *