Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53033 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. While this final 

rule is not subject to the Executive 

Order, the EPA has reason to believe 

that ozone has a disproportionate effect 

on active children who play outdoors 

(62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The 

EPA has not identified any specific 

studies on whether or to what extent 

SolsticeTM 1233zd(E) may affect 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA has not considered the use of 

any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 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. 

The 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 will not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective on 

September 27, 2013. 

L. 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 District of 

Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days 

from the date the final action is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Filing a petition for review by the 

Administrator of this final action does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review must be 

final, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such action. Thus, any 

petitions for review of this action 

related to the exemption of SolsticeTM

1233zd(E) from the regulatory definition 

of VOCs must be filed in the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days from the date 

final action is published in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 51, 

Subpart F, continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 

7413, 7414, 7470–7479, 7501–7508, 7601, 

and 7602. 

§ 51.100—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended at the 

end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text 

by removing the words ‘‘and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘trans 1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene; and 

perfluorocarbon compounds which fall 

into these classes:’’. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21014 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0148; FRL–9843–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation 

Plan; Extension of BART Compliance 

Date for Reid Gardner Generating 

Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

extend the compliance date for NOX

emission limits, under the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, 

for Units 1, 2, and 3 at the Reid Gardner 

Generating Station (RGGS) by 18 

months from January 1, 2015, to June 

30, 2016. EPA’s BART determination 

was promulgated in a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) on August 

23, 2012. On March 26, 2013, EPA 

granted reconsideration of the 

compliance date and proposed to extend 

the compliance date for the NOX

emission limits applicable to Units 1, 2, 

and 3 at RGGS. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
53034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1The transcript for the April 29, 2013 public 

hearing is available as document 0014 in the docket 

for this rulemaking (EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0148). 

2See comment letter from Dan Galpern, Law 

Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt, on behalf of the 

Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation 

Association, and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, 

to EPA, dated May 28, 2013, available as document 

0013 in the docket for this rulemaking. 

3See comment letter from Starla Lacy, NV 

Energy, to EPA, dated May 14, 2013, available as 

document 0010 in the docket for this rulemaking. 

See also comment letter from Rob Bamford, NDEP, 

to EPA, dated May 15, 2013, available as document 

number 0009 in the docket for this rulemaking. 

4The schedule for compliance with BART 

emission limits for NOX is outlined in greater detail 

in the letter from Starla Lacy, NV Energy to Anita 

Lee, EPA, dated January 31, 2013, available as 

document 0004 in the docket for this rulemaking. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action at EPA–R09–OAR–2013– 

0148. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 9 office. Documents 

from EPA’s final BART determination 

and FIP for RGGS, promulgated on 

August 23, 2012, are generally available 

electronically in a different docket: 

EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130. Please note 

that while many of the documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may not be specifically listed in the 

index to the docket or may be publicly 

available only in hard copy at the EPA 

Region 9 office (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports, or otherwise voluminous 

materials), and some may not be 

publicly available in electronic or hard 

copy form (e.g., confidential business 

information). To view 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, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–2), San 

Francisco, CA 94105. Anita Lee can also 

be reached at (415) 972–3958, or via 

electronic mail at r9_airplanning@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

III. Summary of EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA provided a detailed description 

of the BART requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule and our analysis of 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection’s (NDEP) BART 

determination for RGGS elsewhere. See 

77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012). EPA took 

final action on the BART determination 

for NOX emissions from Unit 1, 2, and 

3 at RGGS on August 23, 2012 (77 FR 

50936). On October 19, 2012, Nevada 

Energy (NV Energy, also known as 

Nevada Power Company), filed a 

petition to the EPA Administrator for 

reconsideration of the BART 

compliance date. On March 26, 2013, 

EPA granted the petition for 

reconsideration and also proposed to 

extend the BART compliance date for 

NOX for the affected units by 18 months, 

from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on March 26, 2013, provides 

additional detail regarding the history of 

EPA actions related to BART for RGGS, 

the petition for reconsideration, a 

summary of supplemental information 

submitted by NV Energy to demonstrate 

that the extended compliance date of 

June 30, 2016, is as expeditious as 

practicable, and EPA’s demonstration 

that the extension does not interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

This information is not restated here. 

See 78 FR 18280 (March 26, 2013). 

II. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

EPA provided a 60-day public 

comment period for our proposed 

rulemaking that was scheduled to close 

on May 28, 2013. On April 4, 2013, EPA 

provided notice in the Federal Register 

of a public hearing and a short 

extension of the comment period to May 

30, 2013 (78 FR 20290). The public 

hearing was held on April 29, 2013, in 

Moapa, Nevada. EPA received oral 

comments from 12 individuals during 

the public hearing. Prior to the close of 

the public comment period, EPA also 

received three written comment letters. 

Oral comments made during the 

public hearing are summarized below 

and are followed by EPA’s responses to 

those comments. In general, comments 

made during the public hearing 

expressed concerns related to the health 

impacts on the Moapa community from 

RGGS and expressed opposition to the 

proposed extension of the BART 

compliance date for NOX. Members of 

the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians 

(Moapa Band) and the Sierra Club, as 

well as legal counsel representing the 

Moapa Band and the Sierra Club, 

provided oral testimony during the 

public hearing.1 Subsequent to the 

public hearing, and prior to the close of 

the comment period, the legal counsel 

representing the Moapa Band, the Sierra 

Club, and the National Parks 

Conservation Association, submitted a 

written comment letter stating that the 

groups took no position on the proposed 

compliance date extension.2 EPA also 

received comment letters in support of 

the proposed extension of the 

compliance date, from NV Energy and 

NDEP.3 NDEP noted that the extended 

compliance date would still result in the 

installation and operation of new NOX

controls more than 1 year earlier than 

the 5-year maximum period allowed for 

BART under the Clean Air Act and the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

In its comment letter to EPA dated 

May 14, 2013, NV Energy also provided 

additional information regarding an 

amendment to Senate Bill 123 

introduced to the Nevada Legislature in 

April, 2013 (known as ‘‘NVision’’). 

NVision proposed to retire some of the 

coal-fired units owned by NV Energy on 

an accelerated schedule and to replace 

retired generation with energy from new 

natural gas-fired units and renewable 

sources. NVision would require early 

retirement of Units 1, 2, and 3 at RGGS 

by the end of 2014, prior to the original 

compliance date in our August 23, 2012 

final rulemaking and the extended 

compliance date we proposed on March 

26, 2013. Because NV Energy must also 

file its plan to the Nevada Public 

Utilities Commission for review and 

approval, NV Energy states that the 

earliest date it would receive a decision 

on the plan would be in the first quarter 

of 2014. Given the current uncertainty 

regarding approval of NVision, NV 

Energy stated in its letter that it will 

continue to move forward on an 

expeditious schedule to comply with 

BART emission limits for NOX at RGGS 

by June 30, 2016.4

All written comments submitted to 

EPA express either no position on, or 

are in support of, our proposed action 

to extend the BART compliance date. 

Because our final action extends the 

compliance date as proposed, we are not 

providing any further responses to those 

written comments. Oral comments made 

during the public hearing express 

additional concerns related to RGGS 

and the proposed compliance date 

extension. We respond below to the 

comments received during the public 

hearing that are relevant to our 

proposed action. 

Comment 1: In general, the 

commenters opposed extending the 

compliance date for meeting the NOX

emission limits at RGGS. A number of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53035 

5http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/

Reports/history.cfm?billname=SB123. 

6See 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012). 

7The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, lead, and PM10. 

8See: ‘‘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). 

commenters indicated that the plant has 

been in operation for many years and 

should no longer be allowed to operate 

without controls. Some commenters 

stated that an extension is not necessary 

in light of the plan to shut the plant 

down next year, and one added that 

maintaining the current compliance 

schedule will give NV Energy added 

incentive to go through with the 

shutdown. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

comment that RGGS is operating 

without controls. RGGS currently 

operates with SO2 and particulate 

matter controls, as well as older lowNOX burners with overfire air. Units 1, 

2, and 3 at RGGS are subject to BART 

based on their age, emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants, and their 

impact on visibility at Class I areas. The 

CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

require BART controls to be installed as 

expeditiously as practicable, but in no 

event later than five years from the date 

of the final rulemaking. As discussed in 

greater detail in our notice of 

reconsideration and proposed 

rulemaking, our proposed extension of 

the compliance date by 18 months, from 

January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, is 

consistent with the CAA and the 

Regional Haze Rule. The extension is 

justified by an expeditious schedule for 

the installation of multiple control 

technologies that require detailed 

engineering, procurement, construction, 

installation, and testing of new controls, 

as well as regulatory approvals from the 

Nevada Public Utilities Commission and 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, with an average time of 14 

months per unit to meet new BART 

emission limits. RGGS is following its 

plan to install new controls to comply 

with BART emission limits as 

expeditiously as practicable and within 

a timeframe that is less than five years 

from the final BART rulemaking. 

As stated previously, although NV 

Energy plans to retire Units 1, 2, and 3 

at RGGS by the end of 2014, NV Energy 

must also file its plan to the Nevada 

Public Utilities Commission for review 

and approval. NV Energy states that the 

earliest date it would receive a decision 

on the plan would be in the first quarter 

of 2014. Given the current uncertainty 

regarding the approval of NVision, NV 

Energy stated in its letter that it 

continues to move forward on its 

expeditious schedule to comply with 

BART emission limits for NOX at RGGS 

by June 30, 2016. Therefore, EPA’s 

action is still necessary despite NV 

Energy’s plans to retire Units 1, 2 and 

3 at RGGS. This final action requires 

that in the event Units 1, 2, and 3 

continue operation and are not retired 

by the end of 2014, these units must 

comply with BART emission limits by 

June 30, 2016, a date which is as 

expeditious as practicable and within 

five years of the final rule. 

Comment 2: Some commenters 

expressed skepticism about NV Energy’s 

pledge to retire its coal-fired boilers at 

RGGS and the passage of pending state 

legislation, which would codify the 

proposed retirement schedule. These 

commenters encouraged the EPA to 

follow through with the existing 

compliance schedule in the event that 

NV Energy does not retire the plant 

voluntarily or at the behest of state 

legislation. 

Response 2: EPA understands that the 

NVision plan has been approved by the 

Nevada Legislature and signed by 

Governor Brian Sandoval on June 11, 

2013.5 NV Energy must also file its plan 

that includes early retirement of Units 1, 

2, and 3 at RGGS to the Nevada Public 

Utilities Commission for review and 

approval. 

As stated in Response 1, EPA is taking 

final action to extend the compliance 

date by 18 months based on our 

determination that the schedule for 

compliance that provides approximately 

14 months per unit for the procurement, 

installation, and testing of new BART 

controls, is reasonable and as 

expeditious as practicable. For this 

reason, the extended compliance date of 

June 30, 2016 is consistent with the 

CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. 

Comment 3: Several commenters 

stated that residents of southern Nevada 

and the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians 

suffer from a variety of health issues, 

including asthma attacks, lung disease, 

cancer, and heart disease, which they 

believe are attributable to emissions 

from RGGS. A few commenters 

recounted their personal experiences 

with deteriorating health or the health 

problems of loved ones. Two 

commenters argued that emissions 

produced by the RGGS are not restricted 

to the area around the plant, but impact 

neighboring cities and states as well. 

Response 3: EPA understands that the 

health of the Moapa community is an 

important issue. Our final BART 

determination for RGGS is expected to 

significantly reduce emissions of NOX.6

Ozone and fine particles are formed in 

the atmosphere from reactions between 

NOX and other pollutants. Nitrogen 

dioxide, or NO2, is a component of NOX. 

Ozone, fine particles and NO2 have all 

been associated with various effects on 

human health and the environment. As 

discussed in our proposed rulemaking, 

EPA has promulgated standards, known 

as the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS), for seven 

pollutants, including NO2, ozone and 

particulate matter with a diameter less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

(PM2.5).7 The primary NAAQS standards 

protect public health, including the 

health of ‘‘sensitive’’ populations, such 

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, 

while the secondary NAAQS standards 

protect public welfare, including 

damage to animals, crops, vegetation, 

and buildings. 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. 

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. RGGS is not located in 

the portion of Clark County that was 

designated nonattainment for PM10. 

Additionally, Clark County is now in 

attainment with the NAAQS for carbon 

monoxide and ozone.8 This means that 

the air quality in the area surrounding 

RGGS is meeting all the NAAQS set by 

EPA to protect human health. 

Comment 4: Two commenters urged 

the EPA to consider the broader 

ramifications of BART controls, warning 

that more stringent control of air 

emissions would lead to an increased 

waste stream and more contaminants 

flowing into wastewater ponds and 

eventually into nearby landfills that 

burden the Moapa community. 

Response 4: EPA understands that 

impacts from the landfills near the 

Moapa community are important issues. 

However, EPA’s proposed rulemaking 

addressed only the compliance date by 

which the affected units at RGGS must 

meet emission limits required under the 

BART provisions of the CAA and 

Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, 

comments related to additional waste 

resulting from emission control 

technologies are not relevant to our 

current action. Discussions and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
53036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9See, for example, 77 FR 20218 (April 3, 2012). 

considerations of non-air quality 

environmental impacts of potential 

controls were addressed in the proposed 

rule dated April 12, 2012 (77 FR 21896) 

and in the final rulemaking dated 

August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50942). 

Comment 5: Two commenters 

discussed how emissions from the 

RGGS have impacted local vegetation 

and wildlife, making it difficult for the 

tribal community to exercise its cultural 

practices (e.g., herbal medicine). 

Response 5: EPA understands that the 

health of local vegetation and wildlife 

are important issues to the Moapa 

community. In addition to ozone 

production, emissions of NOX also 

contribute to acid and nutrient 

deposition. These processes can affect 

the health of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems through acidification or 

eutrophication.9 Our final BART 

determination for RGGS is expected to 

significantly reduce emissions of NOX.

In addition, EPA sets secondary 

standards to protect public welfare, 

including damage to animals and 

vegetation. In general, the secondary 

standards for the criteria pollutants are 

less stringent than, or equal to, the 

primary standards. Because RGGS is not 

located in an area that is designated 

nonattainment for any NAAQS, air 

quality in the area surrounding RGGS is 

meeting the NAAQS set by EPA to 

protect human health and public 

welfare, including animals and 

vegetation. 

III. Summary of EPA Action 

EPA is taking final action to extend 

the date by which Units 1, 2, and 3 at 

RGGS must comply with NOX emission 

limits under the BART requirement of 

the Regional Haze Rule, by 18 months, 

from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This final action extends the 

compliance date for a single source to 

comply with the emission limits in an 

existing FIP. 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 final 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 compliance 

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 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 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 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 final extended compliance date 

is supported by this entity. See Mid-Tex 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 

F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Federal agencies must also develop a 

plan to provide notice to small 

governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory 

requirements. The plan must enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. This action merely 

finalizes 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 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 

rule does not impose regulatory 

requirements on any government entity. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final 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 

finalizes an 18-month extension of a 

compliance date. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. EPA 

further notes that we received a 

comment letter from the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection in 

support of the extended compliance 

date for RGGS. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this final rule 

may have tribal implications because 

the Reid Gardner Generating Station is 

located adjacent to reservation lands of 

the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempt tribal 

law. 

During a telephone call on March 15, 

2013, and in a letter of the same date, 

Regional Administrator Blumenfeld 

invited Chairman William Anderson of 

the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53037 

consult on our proposed action to 

extend the compliance date for Reid 

Gardner. On April 29, 2013, EPA held 

a public hearing in the Administration 

Building of the Moapa Band of Paiute 

Indians, in Moapa, Nevada, to accept 

comment on the proposed action. 

During the public hearing, EPA received 

comments from 12 individuals, 

including Chairman Anderson, several 

members of the Moapa Band, and the 

Sierra Club. A letter from the attorney 

jointly representing the Moapa Band of 

Paiute Indians, the Sierra Club, and the 

National Parks Conservation 

Association, expressed no position on 

our action to extend the compliance 

date for RGGS by 18 months. EPA did 

not receive a response regarding 

government-to-government consultation 

from Chairman Anderson. 

Additionally, for prior actions related 

to regional haze and the Reid Gardner 

Generating Station, EPA consulted with 

Chairman Anderson and other tribal 

representatives early in the process to 

allow the Moapa Band of Piute Indians 

to have meaningful and timely input 

into its development. During the 

comment period for those prior actions, 

the Moapa Band 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). 

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 final 

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), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This final rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

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, while 

the final rule provides an 18-month 

extension in the compliance date, the 

facility will still achieve significant 

reductions in NOX emissions. The new 

compliance date for reducing emissions 

is less than five years from the effective 

date of the final BART determination, 

consistent with the BART provisions 

under the CAA. 

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 Reid Gardner 

Generating Station. 

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 October 28, 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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide. 

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

Dated: August 16, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

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. 

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1488 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(3) 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
53038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and other requirements of this section 

by June 30, 2016, and thereafter. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–20749 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0534; FRL–9900–36– 

Region 9] 

Interim Final Determination to Stay and 

Defer Sanctions; California; San 

Joaquin Valley 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to stay the 

imposition of offset sanctions and to 

defer the imposition of highway 

sanctions based on a proposed approval 

of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan published 

elsewhere in this Federal Register. The 

revisions concern the Clean Air Act 

nonattainment area contingency 

measure requirement for the 1997 

annual and 24-hour national ambient air 

quality standards for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) in the San Joaquin Valley. 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on August 28, 2013. 

However, comments will be accepted 

until September 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. 

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 email. 

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 email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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: 

Frances Wicher, EPA Region 9, (415) 

972–3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69896), 

we published a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District’s (SJVUAPCD or District) 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB) 2007 State 

Strategy (collectively the ‘‘SJV PM2.5

SIP’’). As part of this action, EPA 

disapproved the contingency measure 

provisions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP as 

failing to meet the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(9) 

and 40 CFR 51.1012, which require that 

the SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment 

area contain contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress or to attain 

the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 

to 41559 (July 13, 2011) and 76 FR 

69896, 69924 (November 9, 2011). This 

disapproval action became effective on 

January 9, 2012 and started a sanctions 

clock for imposition of offset sanctions 

18 months after January 9, 2012 and 

highway sanctions 6 months later, 

pursuant to CAA section 179 and our 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, 

offset sanctions applied on July 9, 2013 

and will continue to apply, and 

highway sanctions will apply on 

January 9, 2014, unless EPA determines 

that the deficiency forming the basis of 

the disapproval has been corrected. 

On July 3, 2013, the State of California 

submitted as a SIP revision the 

SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘Quantifying 

Contingencies for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’’ 

(dated June 20, 2013) (‘‘Contingency 

Measure SIP’’). In the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are proposing to approve this SIP 

revision because we believe that it 

corrects the deficiency identified in our 

November 9, 2011 partial disapproval 

action. Based on today’s proposed 

approval, we are taking this final 

rulemaking action, effective on 

publication, to stay the imposition of 

the offset sanctions and to defer the 

imposition of the highway sanctions 

triggered by our November 9, 2011 

partial disapproval. 

EPA is providing the public with an 

opportunity to comment on this stay 

and deferral of sanctions. If comments 

are submitted that change our 

assessment described in this final 

determination and the proposed full 

approval of the Contingency Measure 

SIP, we intend to take subsequent final 

action to re-impose sanctions pursuant 

to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are 

submitted that change our assessment, 

then all sanctions and sanction clocks 

will be permanently terminated on the 

effective date of a final rule approval. 

II. EPA Action 

We are making an interim final 

determination to stay the imposition of 

the offset sanctions and to defer the 

imposition of the highway sanctions 

associated with our partial disapproval 

of the SJV PM2.5 SIP, based on our 

concurrent proposal to approve the 

State’s SIP revision as correcting the 

deficiency that initiated these sanctions. 

Because EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the State has corrected 

the deficiency identified in EPA’s 

partial disapproval action, relief from 

sanctions should be provided as quickly 

as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking 

the good cause exception under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 

not providing an opportunity for 

comment before this action takes effect 

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this 

action EPA is providing the public with 

a chance to comment on EPA’s 

determination after the effective date, 

and EPA will consider any comments 

received in determining whether to 

reverse such action. 

EPA believes that notice-andcomment rulemaking before the 

effective date of this action is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. EPA has reviewed the State’s 

submittal and, through its proposed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES