Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21893 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

revise 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Revise § 117.1101 to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.1101 Sturgeon Bay. 

(a) The Bayview (SR 42/57) Bridge, 

mile 3.0 at Sturgeon Bay, shall open on 

signal, except from December 1 through 

March 14, the draw shall open on signal 

if notice is given at least 12 hours in 

advance of intended passage. 

(b) The draw of the Maple-Oregon 

Bridge, mile 4.17 at Sturgeon Bay, shall 

open on signal, except as follows: 

(1) From March 15 through December 

31, need open on signal for recreational 

vessels only on the quarter hour and 

three-quarter hour, 24 hours a day, if 

needed. However, if more than 10 

vessels have accumulated at the bridge, 

or vessels are seeking shelter from 

severe weather, the bridge shall open on 

signal. This drawbridge, along with the 

Michigan Street drawbridge, shall open 

simultaneously for larger commercial 

vessels, as needed. 

(2) From January 1 through March 14, 

the draw shall open on signal if notice 

is given at least 12 hours in advance of 

intended passage. 

(c) The draw of the Michigan Street 

Bridge, mile 4.3 at Sturgeon Bay, shall 

open on signal, except as follows: 

(1) From March 15 through December 

31, need open on signal for recreational 

vessels only on the hour and half-hour, 

24 hours a day, if needed. However if 

more than 10 vessels have accumulated 

at the bridge, or vessels are seeking 

shelter from severe weather, the bridge 

shall open on signal. This drawbridge, 

along with the Maple-Oregon Street 

drawbridge, shall open simultaneously 

for larger commercial vessels, as 

needed. 

(2) From January 1 through March 14, 

the draw shall open on signal if notice 

is given at least 12 hours in advance of 

intended passage. 

Dated: March 11, 2012. 

M.N. Parks, 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, 

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8813 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0200] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th 

Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St 

Mary’s River, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, 

MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a safety zone in the Captain of 

the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. This 

proposed safety zone is intended to 

restrict vessels from certain portions of 

water areas within Sector Sault Sainte 

Marie Captain of the Port zone, as 

defined by 33 CFR 3.45–45. This 

temporary safety zone is necessary to 

protect spectators and vessels from the 

hazards associated with fireworks 

displays. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2012–0200 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email MST3 Kevin Moe, 

Prevention Department, Coast Guard, 

Sector Sault Sainte Marie, MI, telephone 

(906) 253–2429, email 

Kevin.D.Moe@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2012–0200), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an email address, 

or a telephone number in the body of 

your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2012–0200’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2012– 

0200’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting, but you may submit a request 

for one by using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On the evening of 28 June 2012, The 

International Bridge Administration will 

be celebrating the International Bridge 

50th Anniversary. As part of that 

celebration, fireworks will be launched 

from the northeast pier of the U.S. Army 

Corp of Engineers Soo Locks. The 

Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie 

has determined that the fireworks event 

poses various hazards to the public, 

including explosive dangers associated 

with fireworks, and debris falling into 

the water. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

To safeguard against the dangers 

posed by the International Bridge 50th 

Anniversary Celebration fireworks, the 

Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie 

has determined that a temporary safety 

zone is necessary. Thus, the Captain of 

the Port Sault Sainte Marie proposes to 

establish a safety zone on the St. Mary’s 

River to include all waters within a 750- 

foot radius around the eastern portion of 

the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Soo 

Locks North East Pier, centered in 

position: 46°30′19.66′′ N, 084°20′31.61′′ 

W. 

This proposed safety zone will be 

effective and enforced from 10 p.m. 

until 12 p.m. on June 28, 2012. Entry 

into, transiting, or anchoring within the 

proposed safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his 

on-scene representative. All persons and 

vessels authorized to enter the proposed 

safety zone shall comply with the 

instructions of the Coast Guard Captain 

of the Port or the designated on-scene 

representative. The Captain of the Port 

or his on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. 

The Coast Guard determined that this 

rulemaking would not be a significant 

regulatory action because the safety 

zone will be relatively small and 

enforced for a relatively short time. 

Also, the safety zone is designed to 

minimize its impact on navigable waters 

in that vessels may still transit 

unrestricted portions of the waterways. 

Under certain conditions, moreover, 

vessels may still transit through the 

safety zone when permitted by the 

Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21895 

On the whole, the Coast Guard expects 

insignificant adverse impact to mariners 

from the enforcement of this proposed 

safety zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule will affect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: The owners and 

operators of vessels intending to transit 

around the eastern portion of the U.S. 

Army Corp of Engineers Soo Locks 

North East Pier, Sault Sainte Marie 

Michigan, between 10 p.m. and 12 p.m. 

on June 28, 2012. 

This proposed safety zone will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reason; this rule will 

be in effect for only two hours. Vessel 

traffic may still safely pass outside the 

safety zone during the event. In the 

event that this temporary safety zone 

affects shipping, commercial vessels 

may request permission from the 

Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie 

to transit through the safety zone. The 

Coast Guard will give notice to the 

public via a Broadcast to Mariners that 

the regulation is in effect. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If this proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please contact 

MST3 Kevin Moe, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Sault 

Sainte Marie, MI at (906) 253–2429. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this proposed rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule will not affect the 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21896 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. This 

proposed rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone and 

therefore paragraph (34)(g) of figure 

2–1 applies. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T09–0200 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0200 Safety Zone International 

Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration 

Fireworks, St. Mary’s River, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte 

Marie, MI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: All U.S. 

navigable waters of the St. Mary’s River 

within a 750-foot radius around the 

eastern portion of the U.S. Army Corp 

of Engineers Soo Locks North East Pier, 

centered in position: 46°30′19.66′′ N, 

084°20′31.61′′ W [DATUM: NAD 83]. 

(b) Effective and Enforcement period. 

This regulation is effective and will be 

enforced from 10 p.m. until 12 p.m. on 

June 28, 2012. 

(1) The Captain of the Port, Sector 

Sault Sainte Marie may suspend at any 

time the enforcement of the safety zone 

established under this section. 

(2) The Captain of the Port, Sector 

Sault Sainte Marie, will notify the 

public of the enforcement and 

suspension of enforcement of the safety 

zone established by this section via any 

means that will provide as much notice 

as possible to the public. These means 

might include some or all of those listed 

in 33 CFR 165.7(a). The primary method 

of notification, however, will be through 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners and local 

Notice to Mariners. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

(1) Designated representative means 

any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer designated by 

the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte 

Marie to monitor these safety zones, 

permit entry into these safety zones, 

give legally enforceable orders to 

persons or vessels within these safety 

zones, or take other actions authorized 

by the Captain of the Port. 

(2) Public vessel means a vessel 

owned, chartered, or operated by the 

United States or by a State or political 

subdivision thereof. 

(d) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sault 

Sainte Marie or a designated 

representative. Upon being hailed by the 

U.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio, 

flashing light or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(3) When the safety zone established 

by this section is being enforced, all 

vessels must obtain permission from the 

Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie 

or his or her designated representative 

to enter, move within, or exit that safety 

zone. Vessels and persons granted 

permission to enter the safety zone shall 

obey all lawful orders or directions of 

the Captain of the Port or his or her 

designated representative. While within 

the safety zone, all vessels shall operate 

at the minimum speed necessary to 

maintain a safe course. 

(e) Exemption. Public vessels, as 

defined in paragraph (c) of this section, 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

Dated: March 28, 2012. 

J.C. McGuiness, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sault Sainte Marie. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8808 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130, FRL–9658–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Nevada; Regional Haze State and 

Federal Implementation Plans; BART 

Determination for Reid Gardner 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

remaining portion of a revision to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

to implement the regional haze program 

for the first planning period through 

July 31, 2018. This Notice proposes to 

approve the chapter of Nevada’s 

Regional Haze SIP that requires Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

for emissions limits of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from Units 1 and 2 at the 

Reid Gardner Generating Station 

(RGGS). We are proposing to disapprove 

the NOX emissions limit for Unit 3. We 

are also proposing to disapprove the 

provision of the RGGS BART 

determination that sets a 12-month 

rolling average for Units 1 through 3. 

This Notice proposes to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that 

establishes certain requirements for 

which the State, in a letter dated March 

22, 2012, has agreed to submit a SIP 

revision. The FIP sets an emissions limit 

of 0.20 lbs/MMBtu (pounds per million 

British thermal units) for Unit 3 as 

BART and requires the determination of 

emissions from Units 1 through 3 based 

on a 30-day rolling average (averaged 

across all three units). In a prior action, 

EPA approved Nevada’s Regional Haze 

SIP except for its BART determination 

for NOX for RGGS Units 1 through 3. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received at the address below 

on or before May 14, 2012. 

Public Hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing in early May at a location near 

the Facility. We will post information 

on the specifics on our Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/ 

nv.html#haze and by publishing a 

notice in a general circulation 

newspaper at least 15 days before the 

date of the hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0130 by one of the following 

methods: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS