[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53033-53038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20749]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 53034]]


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 [email protected].

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The transcript for the April 29, 2013 public hearing is 
available as document 0014 in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
R09-OAR-2013-0148).
    \2\ See 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.
    \3\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 53035]]

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 low-NOX 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=SB123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012).
    \7\ The other pollutants are sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, 
lead, and PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See: ``Determination of Attainment for PM10 for 
the Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area, NV,'' 75 FR 45485 (August 
3, 2012); ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of 
Nevada; Redesignation of Las Vegas Valley to Attainment for the 
Carbon Monoxide Standard,'' 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010); and 
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Nevada; 
Redesignation of Clark County to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour 
Ozone Standard,'' 78 FR 1149 (January 8, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 53036]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final action on 
small entities, I certify that this final action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The 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

[[Page 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]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
2. Section 52.1488 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this 
section shall comply with the emission limitations

[[Page 53038]]

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