18280 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins, Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Date. This rule will 

be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 

June 1, 2013. 

Dated: March 5, 2013. 

M.F. White, 

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

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06799 Filed 3–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 51 

RIN 2900–AO37 

Removal of 30-Day Residency 

Requirement for Per Diem Payments 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is withdrawing VA’s 

proposed rulemaking, published in the 

Federal Register on September 27, 2012, 

which proposed to amend its 

regulations that govern VA payments to 

State homes for bed holds on behalf of 

veterans. Specifically, the regulation 

proposed to remove a 30-day residency 

requirement before VA would make 

such payments. VA received no 

significant adverse comments 

concerning the proposed rule or its 

companion substantially identical direct 

final rule published on the same date in 

the Federal Register. In a companion 

document in this issue of the Federal 

Register, we are confirming that the 

direct final rule became effective on 

November 26, 2012. Accordingly, this 

document withdraws as unnecessary the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

as of March 26, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harold Bailey, Program Management 

Officer (Director of Administration), VA 

Health Administration Center, 

Purchased Care (10NB3), Veterans 

Health Administration, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20420; (303) 331– 

7551. (This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on September 27, 2012, 77 FR 

59354, VA proposed to amend 38 CFR 

51.43 to eliminate a requirement that a 

veteran must have resided in a State 

home for 30 consecutive days before VA 

will pay per diem for that veteran when 

there is no overnight stay. Additionally, 

VA published a companion 

substantially identical direct final rule 

at 77 FR 59318 on the same date. The 

direct final rule and proposed rule each 

provided a 30-day comment period that 

ended on October 29, 2012. No 

significant adverse comments were 

received. Members of the general public 

submitted two comments supporting the 

rulemaking. 

Because no significant adverse 

comments were received within the 

comment period, VA is withdrawing the 

proposed rule as unnecessary. In a 

companion document in this issue of 

the Federal Register, VA is confirming 

the effective date of the direct final rule, 

RIN 2900–AO36, published at 77 FR 

59318. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on March 20, 2013 for 

publication. 

Dated: March 21, 2013. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06829 Filed 3–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0148; FRL–9793–3] 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted no 

later than May 28, 2013. 

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) Email: 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 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 an 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. 

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 

Web site, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 18281 

1The 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. 

3See 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 EPA Region 9, re: 

Proposed Amendment to Nevada’s 2009 Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan. 

4 77 FR 21896. 

5 77 FR 50936. 

6See 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). 

8EPA’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). 

9On 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. 

10See 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.’’ 

(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 

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 

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

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, 

representing a consortium of eight nongovernmental 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 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 failed to 

consider the impact of administrative 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18282 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11See 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. 

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

NOX formation and control, available at http:// 

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

13 Id. 

14 Institute of Clean Air Companies, Typical 

Installation Timelines for NOX Emissions Control 

technologies on Industrial Sources, December 4, 

2006. 

15Pursuant 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. 

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 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 (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 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 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. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 18283 

16See section 110(l) of the CAA. 

17The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon 

monoxide, lead, and PM10. 

18See: ‘‘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). 

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

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

21The 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. 

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

of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP. 

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].’’ 

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 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 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 

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 entity in 

general. See Mid-Tex Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 

(DC 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
18284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 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 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 

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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen Dioxide. 

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

Dated: March 15, 2013. 

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: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 18285 

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

■ 2. In section § 52.1488 revise 

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 

and other requirements of this section 

by June 30, 2016, and thereafter. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–06756 Filed 3–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 552 and 538 

[OMB Control No. 3090–00XX; Docket 2012– 

0001; Sequence 21] 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation; Submission 

for OMB Review; Modifications 

552.243–72 (Multiple Award Schedules) 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments on an information collection 

requirement for an OMB clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Regulatory Secretariat will be 

submitting to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request to review 

and approve an information collection 

requirement regarding the Modifications 

(Multiple Award Schedule) clause. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before: 

April 25, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dana Munson, General Services 

Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 

357–9652 or email 

Dana.Munson@gsa.gov for clarification 

of content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501– 

4755. Please cite information collection 

3090–00XX. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by Information Collection 

3090–00XX, Modifications, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘Information Collection 3090– 

00XX, Modifications,’’ under the 

heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds 

with ‘‘Information Collection 3090– 

00XX, Modifications.’’ Follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a 

Comment’’ screen. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘Information Collection 3090–00XX, 

Modifications,’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20417. ATTN: Hada 

Flowers/IC 3090–00XX, Information 

Collection 3090–00XX, Modifications. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

3090–00XX, Modifications, in all 

correspondence related to this 

collection. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

GSA is proposing to amend the 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to add 

clause 552.243–72 Modifications 

(Multiple Award Schedules). Under the 

modifications clause, vendors may 

request a contract modification by 

submitting a request to the Contracting 

Officer for approval. At a minimum, 

every request shall describe the 

proposed change(s) and provide the 

rationale for the requested change(s). 

B. Discussion and Analysis 

A notice for this collection was 

published in the Federal Register at 77 

FR 74631, on December 17, 2012. One 

comment was received. 

Comment: The commenter suggested 

that GSA increase the estimated burden 

hours per response to reflect the 

additional time required for complex 

modification requests. Further, the 

commenter stated that the number of 

estimated respondents per year be 

reduced, based on the logic that 

companies with zero sales under their 

contracts are not likely to submit 

modification requests. 

Response: In calculating the current 

estimate of five burden hours per 

response, GSA has taken into 

consideration that modification requests 

can range from simple administrative 

changes to more complex changes 

involving the award of additional 

products and services. Additionally, the 

current estimate of 20,500 respondents 

per year is based on the total number of 

contracts awarded under the Federal 

Supply Schedule program, and is 

utilized consistent with other Federal 

Supply Schedule burden calculations 

for clauses and provisions applicable to 

all Federal Supply Schedule contracts. 

As a result, no change to the burden 

estimate for this collection was made. 

C. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 20,500. 

Responses per Respondent: 3. 

Total Responses: 61,500. 

Hours per Response: 5. 

Total Burden Hours: 307,500. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417; 

telephone (202) 501–4755. Please cite 

OMB Control No. 3090–00XX, 

’’Modifications’’ in all correspondence. 

Dated: March 20, 2013. 

Joseph A. Neurauter, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Senior 

Procurement Executive. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06860 Filed 3–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 553 

[NHTSA–2013–0042] 

RIN 2127–AL32 

Direct Final Rulemaking Procedures 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to 

establish direct final rulemaking (DFR) 

procedures for use in adopting 

amendments to its regulations on which 

no adverse public comment is expected 

by the agency. Under these procedures, 

NHTSA would issue a direct final rule 

adopting amendments that become 

effective a number of days (specified in 

the rule) after the date of publication of 

the rule in the Federal Register, unless 

NHTSA receives written adverse 

comment(s) or written notice of intent to 

submit adverse comment(s) by the 

specified date. Adoption of these new 

procedures would expedite the 

promulgation of routine and 

noncontroversial rules by reducing the 

time and resources necessary to 

develop, review, clear and publish 

separate proposed and final rules. 

NHTSA would not use direct final rule 

procedures for complex or controversial 

issues. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS